- 05 Feb 2016 09:49
#14649537
I would like to add I'm not a natural monarchist, I detest the subservience, the bull shit and the intellectual mediocrity of our own royal family. But in pre modern societies hereditary monarchy does have its advantages. If democracy is out, which was effectively the case during the middle Ages and in the large empires of the ancient world then the only alternative to monarchy is the biggest psychopath wins. At least there's a random chance of getting someone not not too awful as opposed to no chance. This is what we see with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Kim il Sung and Saddam Hussein.
The countervailing factor in a dictatorship is that when the psycho dies he's normally eliminated all the other potential psychos to replace him. So Communism started winding down after Stalin and Mao, because the elite realised it wasn't much fun being in fear of their lives all the time. They didn't want to be led by any more fanatics. Reducing the inequlites of power, prestige, prosperity and opportunity is a noble end. Trying to abolish them is delusional and will inevitably end badly.
When people say democracy is a fiction or its not working, they generally seem to mean, the country's not being run the way I think it should be run. people complain that the majority's wants are bing ignored by the political elite, but the majorty's wants are often contradictory and incoherent at an individual level. they're always contradictory and incoherent at a collective level.
Progressives lie scattered on Woke's highway, Diverse ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.