[Figlio di Moros]

The fact that the state is his private property makes me weary of a monarchy. Sure, monarchs can do great things when their power is unhindered and the King himself is a patriot, but when his son, a complete moron, comes to power you've got a problem. Despite my previous appraisal of the monarchy, my reading of the Romanian Monarchy's history seems to have brought me back to republicanism. Better an authoritarian republic than a powerful monarchy open to the risk of degeneration. Monarchy is preferable over liberal democracy, though.

That the next King will be his son is only certain in hereditary monarchies; an elective monarchy would provide a safeguard against an inherited "idiot King" such as King Edward V, or George I, II, III, or IV. Generally, his son will be the most apt, inheriting his genetic positives and being prepared from birth; however, such a safeguard would allow the another son, or a new dynasty even, could be established if the natural heir is unfit by vice or handicap.

[Fasci XP]

Monarchy is an atrocious concept which has no place in a genuine Fascist system. It is inherently anti-meritocratic, even if there are "safeguards against idiot kings", because it limits the pool of leadership to a specific family, rather than the entire nation.

[Figlio di Moros]

Considering intelligence and many other traits are inheritable, leadership shouldn't be expanded to the whole country. I really can't argue further without knowing you, whether you're hollywood fascist or not.

[Fasci XP]

Opportunity to lead should be offered to anybody with merit and qualification; otherwise, there is a monopoly of power which alienates the rest of the nation. What do you mean by "hollywood fascist"?

[Fasci XP]

Opportunity to lead should be offered to anybody with merit and qualification; otherwise, there is a monopoly of power which alienates the rest of the nation. What do you mean by "hollywood fascist"?

[Fasci XP]

Opportunity to lead should be offered to anybody with merit and qualification; otherwise, there is a monopoly of power which alienates the rest of the nation. What do you mean by "hollywood fascist"?

[Figlio di Moros]

What you describe is a universal constant; some extent of social mobility is positive, but there's never been a society where hierarchy and some modicrum of alienation existed side by side. Furthermore, the masses themselves aren't dangerous. There were constant peasents rebellions throughout the middle ages, but were utterly meaningless for long-term development. Where the aristocracy, however, does not have some form of security, or believes themselves not compensated well enough, there is civil war, coups, etc.

There's also the fact of inheritable intelligence, a factor you've ignored. Social mobility can only exist so long as there is a certain extent of heterogenious talents among the social classes; once those of the best talent rise to the top, there would be social stratification. They would marry those of similarly high class, possessing the same inheritable traits, and their children will be better fit to possess their roles, by inheritance and preparation. Those of lower class, not possessing thoose traits, would marry those of equally low class, not possessing those traits, and would bear children of similar lack of those traits. So long as a Monarch has children with a women of high class, his children should inherit his particular traits.

Meritocracy and classism aren't innately antonymous.

[Fasci XP]

Except that is simply not true. Your view of genetics and heredity is very limited; it isn't that linear, that straight-forward. And yes, we will have social classes and hierarchy. I am only saying that there must be a mechanism for social promotion and demotion...based on merit, at all times. It would be unfair for the ruling or management class to become entrenched by virtue of blood and for qualified individuals from the lower castes to have no opportunity for promotion.

[Figlio di Moros]

Do you have anything to back up your argument that "it's simply not true"? IQ is 50-85% inheritable, and largely limited only by childhood malnutrition, lead poisoning, or other brain damage. These are facts. That this would lead to social stratification, where the upper class has an inheritly higher IQ, should also be evident. If the upper class continues to breed with the upper class, their children will have higher IQ's than lower class children and will therefore be the more merited leaders.

Try making a more well-formed argument than "That's not fair!!!"

[Fasci XP]

You misunderstand the point of my post. I am saying that hierarchy ought to be dynamic such that individuals can be promoted or demoted. It may well be the case that those of the "upper classes" are more commonly fit than unfit to lead, but in those cases where they are unfit, they shouldn't be protected by virtue of their lineage, and in those cases where the lower classes do, however rarely, show aptitude, they ought to have the opportunity for promotion. Do you not agree with this? This can be a responsibility of the educational system, which would provide equality of opportunity. The fit can rise, and then lead.

And your argument is flawed because, while intelligence is largely hereditary, the present-day "upper class" is hardly the result of intelligence. True, many of the wealthy today are wealthy through entrepreneurship and industrial acumen, but many are not; they may be simply born into wealthy families, or they may be thugs, thieves, and the like.

The "upper class" is not the result of intelligence in all cases. And intelligence is not so linear that you cannot have an intelligent child born to less intelligent parents. These things can and do happen all the time.

[Figlio di Moros]

Which is why I support certain safeguards, myself.

[Fasci XP]

Then we are not in disagreement, except perhaps over the use of monarchy, which I find unnecessary. Even if it is the case that those of the "upper-class" (and I am not sure how you define upper class. Wealth shouldn't be the primary factor in determining class) are "more intelligent", family connections and lineage should have nothing whatsoever to do with qualification precisely because they do not have to have anything to do with qualification. It ought to be the responsibility of the educational system to pick out those who are most qualified to lead; whether or not they tend to come from the "upper class" families isn't a real consideration, but rather an observable trend.

[Eran]

I still don't understand why any proponent of autocracies believes that a self-selecting "meritocratic elite" will, with any reliability or persistence, continue to serve the "national interest".

It is still less likely to happen when one check on national autocratic regimes - competition from the rest of the world - disappears as we move to contemplate a global autocratic regime.

[starman2003]

It is still less likely to happen when one check on national autocratic regimes - competition from the rest of the world - disappears as we move to contemplate a global autocratic regime.

So you don't think ETs are out there? Highly advanced ones could be here already.

[Wolfman]

I still don't understand why any proponent of Private Business believes that a self-selecting "meritocratic elite" will, with any reliability or persistence, continue to serve the "Corporate Interest".

This statement is just as accurate. Ultimately, any non-Government Structure (ie, a Dictatorship) is built off of the same theoretical principles as a non-Democratic Business structure. Which is to say, you're building the whole structure off of the assumption that only competent people will even work for the company in the first place (ie, bureaucrats), and that only the competent will go up to middle management (ie, Department heads), and higher (Legislatures). And in both cases, you're basically running off of the simple hope that that is true.

And Democracy is no better. It's like a Corporation which has most of it's shares held by people who have no fucking clue how the company works. Most of the time, the "owners" will happily do whatever is needed to make a profit today, even if drives the company into the ground tomorrow. This probably the number one reason why Corporations go under. As a more general case and point: anything that Donald Trump has ever touched.

Non-Democratic systems (especially systems based off of a Meritocratic assumption like Fascism) are like an Employee Owned Company. There's still a degree of Democracy, it's just limited to people who actually understand how the company (government) actually fucking works! Except with Meritocratic Government, anyone in the society can vote, just they have to demonstrate that they aren't retarded.