I'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?
Monarchy just doesn't work unless it is a historical.figurehead position like England. And Theocracy in any form is bad.
Theocratic? Really?
I could make a (weak) argument for democratic monarchy, but theocratic?
No, sorry. That's just all sorts of dumb.
I am not found of the idea. A technocracy would be best or a meritocracy after that.
Over all different governments server different needs. What is best for one group in time will not be best for another.
The merits of a Monarchy depend on the merits of the Monarch. You friend sounds like a good and thoughtful person. I admire him for not worshiping at the altar of Democracy, as is the current fashion.
You might want to check out Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Herman Hoppe
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765808684/sr=8-1/qid=1141154751/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7656910-2854258?%5Fencoding=UTF8
A monarchy could be a good system , as long as it's backed by a good-functioning form of feodalism.(Which , after all , is a crude form of a meritocracy.)
The only problem with that is that it's so easily abused and corrupted.
With the right person at the head, Monarchy is one of the best systems of government. With the wrong person, it sucks.
I suppose, though, that's the case with any type of government, but I think with a Monarchy it's a little more...pronounced/obvious.
Quote from: Insert Username HereWith the right person at the head, Monarchy is one of the best systems of government. With the wrong person, it sucks.
I suppose, though, that's the case with any type of government, but I think with a Monarchy it's a little more...pronounced/obvious.
And unlike some other forms of government no checks and balances. Also its by blood not by merit or choice of populance.
The way to make a monarchy functional is of course to remove all power from the monarch.
It's not an entirely unusual arrangement - see UK, Sweden, Denmark etc.
Monarchy main use is to avoid blood civil wars, though they still slip through. Democracy is better at that, but requires the infrastructure to be built up first. At the time of it's height, monarchy was the best choice out their for anything resembling a large empire.
Quote from: KnightcrawlerAnd unlike some other forms of government no checks and balances. Also its by blood not by merit or choice of populance.
Not 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...
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...
Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Quote from: KnightcrawlerPower Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Not with me at the head. :D
What 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?
Well, as far as I can tell, my friend's ideal gov't is one with no real checks at all. Edicts from on high are enforced by a combination of the clergy's beauracracy and what passes for a police force.
So, sort of like the US of today then. :p
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: DackeIn 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DackeIn 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.
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.
Monarchy's success or failure begins and ends with the sole possessor of power: the monarch.
When the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.
When the monarch is incompetent or weak, such as Henry VI of England or Nero of Rome, there is no worse form of government.
If you recall both British and Roman history, their movements away from Monarchy and toward Republicanism/Parliamentarianism came after bad monarchs (Tarquin and King John respectively).
Rather than ride the roller-coaster of good monarch/bad monarch, both governments sought a body to provide a check/balance (primarily) against a bad king or one who sought too much power.
Chuck
QuoteWhen the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.
I disagree. A competent and well-liked monarch usually ends up disempowering people through her or his competence, making people less able to govern themselves and more prone to not be able to steer the next monarch straight.
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?
What's the old saw? "Never argue with a moron, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
If this guy is a french fry short of a happy meal as you say you're never going to convince him.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckMonarchy's success or failure begins and ends with the sole possessor of power: the monarch.
When the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.
When the monarch is incompetent or weak, such as Henry VI of England or Nero of Rome, there is no worse form of government.
If you recall both British and Roman history, their movements away from Monarchy and toward Republicanism/Parliamentarianism came after bad monarchs (Tarquin and King John respectively).
Rather than ride the roller-coaster of good monarch/bad monarch, both governments sought a body to provide a check/balance (primarily) against a bad king or one who sought too much power.
Chuck
So all we need to do is genetically engineer a perfect monarch. Sweet!
Quote from: Vermicious KnidSo all we need to do is genetically engineer a perfect monarch. Sweet!
I hope that my friend never reads this thread. If he were to ever read this, he'd be crowing about it for a week.
2/3rds my ass.
Quote from: willpaxI disagree. A competent and well-liked monarch usually ends up disempowering people through her or his competence, making people less able to govern themselves and more prone to not be able to steer the next monarch straight.
Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria, for example, were two of the most popular and powerful monarchs history has ever seen.
So by your rationale they must have dissolved Parliament right?
You're imposing a 20th century ideology on these people. Not all power corrupts. Not all monarchs have an overreaching ambition OR desire to found a dynasty.
For every Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte there are dictators who were powerful and popular and did what they needed to do, without attempting to change the rules.
Chuck
QuoteSo by your rationale they must have dissolved Parliament right?
Please don't put words in my mouth, especially intentionally absurd arguments that I didn't make. There are ways that civil society can fray that don't involve outright tyranny. For example, the concentration of power that just seems efficient and wise when you have a smart ruler can, in hindsight, be disastrous with the successor, but social institutions don't turn on a dime without violence or catastrophe.
Your examples are, of course, rather interesting in their own rights. Elizabeth started out a very weak monarch, and only through a lifetime's work did she make her rule and her country strong. Her successor, James I, began a fraying process that led in two generations to a civil war and the execution of a king. People who should have been accommodated instead found that they had no way to influence a powerful monarch, leading to warfare.
Victoria is a somewhat better example on the surface, but Victoria, for the most part, presided over the gradual de-politicization of the monarchy in Great Britain. While still an institution with tremendous symbolic power, Victoria (especially later in life) involved herself less and less with the actual government of the nation. I'm not sure that's the example you are thinking of.
I apologize if I come across somewhat snappish on this topic. The romanticization of "benevolent autocrats" rubs this anarchist sympathizer the wrong way every time, and historically, has never actually worked as well as its proponents say it will. Even in a monarchy, distributed power tends to lead to greater stabiity than concentrated power (although such a broad generalization is itself open to many exceptions and extreme cases). I know many people really hope for the infinitely wise parent who will run their lives for them, but the times in history that such hopes are given real political expression have rarely been happy for long.
Quote from: willpaxI apologize if I come across somewhat snappish on this topic. The romanticization of "benevolent autocrats" rubs this anarchist sympathizer the wrong way every time, and historically, has never actually worked as well as its proponents say it will. Even in a monarchy, distributed power tends to lead to greater stabiity than concentrated power (although such a broad generalization is itself open to many exceptions and extreme cases). I know many people really hope for the infinitely wise parent who will run their lives for them, but the times in history that such hopes are given real political expression have rarely been happy for long.
I understand distrust of authority. In fact my original point was that senates and parliaments came into existence to limit such power.
I have no romantic notions about monarchs or emperors. But neither do I see them as 20th century boogeymen. They were what they were. Some monsters, some benevolent and effective.
This doesn't mean I was advocating it as a form of governemnt. I believe I pointed to several autocrats that no one would want to be ruled by (Nero).
But you can find examples of as many good ones as bad.
Chuck
QuoteThis doesn't mean I was advocating it as a form of governemnt. I believe I pointed to several autocrats that no one would want to be ruled by (Nero).
But you can find examples of as many good ones as bad.
I don't think anyone can argue against this point. I was trying for something a bit more subtle--that really dynamic leaders can have a long-term disempowering effect. Not that it is impossible to have as a leader a person who simply makes those around her or him better; but that "helper" qualities and "leader" qualities seem to rarely be found in the same person (together with "social climber" qualities and "good administrator" qualities to boot, especially in caste systems that don't develop the talents of everyone equally well).
So I wouldn't say that we are really disagreeing with each other, just having a slightly different emphasis.