Monarchy is the best form of government

[Theodarzna]

Not that I disagree with you, but for quite a while I were curious, did anyone make a proper (and preferably more accesible to non-scientific folk) study about all the monarchies, autocracies and alikes, weightened their impact versus possibilities in given circumstances to give such verdict? If you have access to it I would gladly learn about it. But not about generic basic stuff they teach in every western country's elementary school.

It is remarkably difficult to carry out such a study. As of yet I've not heard of one that is scientifically doable, as nothing in history works like that.

[jackofwind]

I would agree a single, just ruler would be the best form of governance. The problem is though, People are shit and there are no just people.

There hasn't and never will be a wholly just ruler, but I think Augustus was as close as humans could ever come to that ideal.

[Theodarzna]

I would agree a single, just ruler would be the best form of governance. The problem is though, People are shit and there are no just people.

I would argue the effective "Justness" of any ruler depends entirely on the relationship that person has to those he or she is making rules for.

1) What is this persons role? What exactly do they do? Do they make Laws or simply enforce them? Are they Judges? Dictators? Military Leaders? Priests?

2) What is their connection to the classes beneath them? Are they Patrons and their subjects Clients? How dependent on the masses opinion are they?

3) How diffused is power in the society? Is it centralized or no?

4) Where does Law come from? Is it traditional/customary? Or is it made from the top?

These all are relevant factors.

[IIamaKing]

I would argue the effective "Justness" of any ruler depends entirely on the relationship that person has to those he or she is making rules for.

1) What is this persons role? What exactly do they do? Do they make Laws or simply enforce them? Are they Judges? Dictators? Military Leaders? Priests?

2) What is their connection to the classes beneath them? Are they Patrons and their subjects Clients? How dependent on the masses opinion are they?

3) How diffused is power in the society? Is it centralized or no?

4) Where does Law come from? Is it traditional/customary? Or is it made from the top?

These all are relevant factors.

Ideally, 1 guy or girl, in full power, one who interacts daily with the people s/he rules over. Essentially a ruler who is god to his/her subjects. If the person was truly and wholly good, I think that would be the best form of governance. But as I mentioned, there is no such person, now or ever.

[Xar226]

Thoughts?

I actually think you have the ordering right. The problem is the list is missing magnitudes.

Yes, an enlightened, just and magnanimous monarch can move with speed no non-autocratic form of government can hope to match. But they can do the same with incredible harm when they are not enlightened and just. The value of a just monarchy over a just democracy isn't that high; they both get to the "right place" eventually, it's just a matter of speed. But the difference between an unjust monarchy and an unjust democracy are worlds apart, at least if the system of government is worth a damn.

In other words, democracy trades a small amount of upside that could be achieved in some circumstances of an autocracy to protect against the incredible harm a bad autocratic leader can inflict. There's a reason your "hierarchy" and "lowerarchy" converge at the same answer in the middle.

There are other things going on as well. For example, there is a psychological benefit to participating in one's democracy that doesn't exist at all in an autocracy even if you believe the autocracy is doing the right thing (though especially if you don't). There are legitimate differences of political opinion that can't necessarily be captured by simply declaring a leader just and wise, etc, etc. But at its heart, it's just trading a path that can veer wildly to good or to harm for a more sure one.

To quote Churchill (sorta): "[D]emocracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried."

We're at where we're at for a reason. I just hope the lessons of history aren't being lost. We seem to be making our democracy shittier and shittier as well these days and it is going to backfire badly.

[Tiwack]

Been there, done that. Who put the idea in your head that democracy isn't preferable to you? Go open any history book and it should be self-evident how you take the possibilities and opportunities you have today for granted when you suggest this nonsense.

[LaserChild9]

You can have a most benevolent king only for his brat of a son to take over and destroy everything he spent his life building.

True, but you can have a decent leader, only for trump to take over and alienate the rest of the world. So that applies to all situations... I guess the worst part is, the people picked trump.

[Jastall]

True, but you can have a decent leader, only for trump to take over and alienate the rest of the world. So that applies to all situations... I guess the worst part is, the people picked trump.

The difference being that when a Trump gets elected, democratic institutions ensure he cannot do too much damage by his lonesome.

If the son of the king of a total incompetent or an asshole, at best he gets removed quietly before he does too much damage, but at worst (and more likely) civil war ensues. Not to mention the constant intrigues that happen as a matter of course in a royal court make Washington look like a haven of purity. See Saudi Arabia for reference.

[LaserChild9]

The difference being that when a Trump gets elected, democratic institutions ensure he cannot do too much damage by his lonesome.

If the son of the king of a total incompetent or an asshole, at best he gets removed quietly before he does too much damage, but at worst (and more likely) civil war ensues. Not to mention the constant intrigues that happen as a matter of course in a royal court make Washington look like a haven of purity. See Saudi Arabia for reference.

I don't disagree, but again, trump has tried to take apart anything that can actually stop him doing what he wants. He hasn't been successful but atm he is only a quarter of the way through what will hopefully only be a 4 year stint.

Say what you want about Monarchies but history shows that they were successful for quite some time. They are kind of outdated now though.

[Najnaj]

...and this is why children can't vote.

[Hisholyness]

I prefer Frank Herbert's (the Author of Dune) take on it: “Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.” and the corollary: “Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.”

We have no melange or kwisatz haderachs in real life = no effective monarcy.

edit: I've actually been rereading Dune the last few weeks

[kasuke06]

I'm okay with monarchy as long as there is some kind of rite of individual challenge to ensure the strongest rule.

[breadisfunny]

i agree monarchy under the sin'dorei is the best form of governance!

[Alvito]

You can have a most benevolent king only for his brat of a son to take over and destroy everything he spent his life building.

You can say the same for any exchange of power though. The only difference is tricking a few fools into supporting say a new president long enough to move them into their own pumpkin palace or white house.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Best is tribal, if you are playing ck2 at least. Better casus bellis. Best to reform to feudal once you are established though.

[Deleted]

I'm okay with monarchy as long as there is some kind of rite of individual challenge to ensure the strongest rule.

The strongest are usually the least intelligent, all you'd get is tons of "ME SMASH, YOU DIE!" guys.

[Underverse]

One person will never be right all the time. Maybe a Triumvirate of sorts, or a council. I do think that giving power to the people is generally a bad idea.

[kasuke06]

The strongest are usually the least intelligent, all you'd get is tons of "ME SMASH, YOU DIE!" guys.

that's what you have a second for.

[Amerrol]

A benevolent monarch who cares about his people can do a lot of good, especially compared to the bullshit we have going on in democracy today. Unfortunately, ultimate power tends to corrupt, so no system will every truly work because there are always assholes looking to fuck people over to get ahead.

[belfpala]

Yeah, because it's a theoretical ideal and humans don't work like that. Nobody seeks such absolute power while being utterly uninterested in abusing of it, and nobody in existence all has the right answers to all the myriad of problems that plague a nation. It's the same reason communism doesn't work, on paper it's cool in reality it crashes hard in the face of human nature.

Monarchy is a shit idea and we're well rid of it. It can stay in the form of figurehead monarchs, that's fine.

Right. A perfect monarchy with a perfect Philosopher King is a beautiful thing to imagine. The Republic is an interesting read, and I brought it up because the question posed by the OP is essentially the same subject matter: what form of government? And it reaches the answer of having a Philosopher King.

And for sure figurehead monarchs can stay. Queen Elizabeth II is great.