On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
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.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
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.
READ and be less Ignorant.
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.
“Nostalgia was like a disease, one that crept in and stole the colour from the world and the time you lived in. Made for bitter people. Dangerous people, when they wanted back what never was.” -- Steven Erikson, The Crippled God
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.
If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
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.
...and this is why children can't vote.
I'm okay with monarchy as long as there is some kind of rite of individual challenge to ensure the strongest rule.
O Flora, of the moon, of the dream. O Little ones, O fleeting will of the ancients. Let the hunter be safe. Let them find comfort. And let this dream, their captor, Foretell a pleasant awakening
i agree monarchy under the sin'dorei is the best form of governance!
r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
i will never forgive you for this blizzard.
Best is tribal, if you are playing ck2 at least. Better casus bellis. Best to reform to feudal once you are established though.
Owner of ONEAzerothTV
Tanking, Blood DK Mythic+ Pugging, Soloing and WoW Challenges alongside other discussions about all things in World of Warcraft
ONEAzerothTV
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.
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.
https://www.hotslogs.com/Player/Prof...ayerID=1579599
"MMOC forums let me keep my job again. Whew." -Greg "Ghostcrawler" Street
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.