«12. . .8,3518,3528,3538,3548,3558,3568,357. . .9,1649,165»
"Authority is liberating "
Candro, you forgot the other ones: "War is peace", "Freedom is slavery", "2 + 2 = 5"
Acronius, The kerguelen archipelago, Usniya, Candro, and 1 otherThe northern cresent
Utopia is dystopia
There is no good reason for democracy, absolutism is the only way to keep society functioning.
Post self-deleted by Candro.
Actually, absolute monarchies only came about in the 17th century, and already had met their demise to a large part in the beginning of the 19th. The only exceptions are, according to Wikipedia: "Brunei,[5] Oman,[6] Saudi Arabia,[7] Swaziland,[8] Vatican City" + the UAE. Democracy has already been around longer than that. (18th/19th centuy onwards)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
Before the 17th, monarchies were either feudal, tribal or something else.
It totally didn't in monarchies, where kings were able to tax their citizens to starvation and spend the money at will? At least in democracy you can hold these kinds of people accountable. If you have problems with greed, you might have a problem with capitalism, not democracy.
Elections aren't meant to be popularity contests, if you have a well-educated population, it will select the one it deems the most competent. It is in any case better than letting it be hereditary, or anyone else who has no reason to care about the needs of the general people.
Ideally I would prefer for a strong and wise order, or council of individuals to arise with the gole of creating a better world (or nation) through force and order. This council would chose a compitant, wise, and strong leader. Personally if I was in control, I would form an anti corruption agency fanatically loyal to the nation and preventing corruption. This council would also be free to chose its successors.
Are not ment to be, but that is what many have become.
And what do you think monarchies would become if they were to be more popular again? Totally something different from what they were in the past, where it was rife with power abuse, corruption and wasteful spending on luxuries while the common people often had trouble affording food and other base necessities with all the taxes and forced labor?
That would totally work better than all the real-life attempts at ending corruption (see for example: Philippines) or the other "better world" ideals of communism? And fanatical people in the most important body of government - would they not start killing and exterminating everyone they consider a threat, like it happened in fascist and many communist states, like China or the Soviet Union?
I promise to give you free everything is not a particularly good way to choose a ruler
Selling what you can produce and buying what other can produce is greedy?
Educating a certain person to be a ruler and having that person rule after the previous one dies or gives up thier status. Having multiple people educated like this would also serve to increase stability as long as no more than three are educated like that, otherwise the classic situation of the kings eighteen kids pushing for the throne can happen.
I'll concede this point because I can't be bothered to argue aganist it
What he described is perfectly reasonable. What is wrong with order and stability?
Currently we have the most well educated populous in the modern west but we still manage to get leaders like George Bush, and Jimmy Carter. I'm sure Europe has some as well but I don't care enough to look through the gigajillion European leaders since 1950.
Never said it was. But a leader should at least represent a majority of the populace.
How is that a good way to rule? It doesn't matter how much you teach someone to lead if the teachings go against what the people want.
Post self-deleted by Candro.
Why?
That goes for both statements.
A leader should represent a majority of the populace because a leader leads a nation. Typically, leaders have a fairly large amount of power (If they didn't, they would be a figurehead at most) and normally make choices that impact the entire nation. Having a small group of people making decisions that affect everyone means that you can completely screw over your people without being held accountable.
Obviously, a democratically elected leader wouldn't do everything the people want, but at least they would be held accountable.
«12. . .8,3518,3528,3538,3548,3558,3568,357. . .9,1649,165»
Advertisement