3 ms·

> It's very hard for a republic to get corruption, waste, and crime to zero, it almost never happens. It is very possible got a good monarch to clean house and

> It's very hard for a republic to get corruption, waste, and crime to zero, it almost never happens. It is very possible got a good monarch to clean house and get corruption, waste, and crime to zero. Stuff like this makes me wonder if there is any hope in the practice of studying history or trying to recreate it. Your statements make sense (in retrospect and with your evidence) but, at least here in the States, it is almost 180 degrees opposite to the political consensus. Your above quote reminded me of the Civilization PC games, especially the early ones that just have a simple "government type" instead of an attribute matrix. The older game consistently portrayed Monarchy as having corruption problems, while Republics didn't have as much and Democracy was immune. As if...

Goladus 16y ago
The key word in his sentence was "possible." The reason for that is the efficiency and creativity of a single person versus a complex process-driven organization. Monarchy, in the long term, is far more volatile than a republic.
netcan 16y ago
The best solutions to corruption is, often, making it irrelevant. In the Saudi system, the rulers don't pilfer public money (like oil money) the way that most if it will be pilfered in Iraq, the just own it. They aren't corrupted into placing friends, family & allies in government positions, that how systems work and it's exactly what is expected of them. Filing to appoint a powerful ally might result in the weakening of the alliance and instability in the kingdom. Similarly, capitalism doesn't have to worry about the corruption of greedy individuals out to make money for themselves without regard for the greater scheme, this is how the system works. If people didn't follow their own desire for personal prosperity, nothing would be produced. Saudi Arabia is not a good example for anything though. The country itself (IE, the land) produces the wealth pretty much autonomously. The people do not have to be productive for the monarchy to have wealth. All government needs to do is provide government services and ensure stability. They don't have to be all that efficient because they can afford to do things the costly way. In other monarchies (EG, neighbouring Jordan) the people have to make the wealth. This creates a completely different dynamic.

Goladus 16y ago

The key word in his sentence was "possible." The reason for that is the efficiency and creativity of a single person versus a complex process-driven organization. Monarchy, in the long term, is far more volatile than a republic.

netcan 16y ago

The best solutions to corruption is, often, making it irrelevant. In the Saudi system, the rulers don't pilfer public money (like oil money) the way that most if it will be pilfered in Iraq, the just own it. They aren't corrupted into placing friends, family & allies in government positions, that how systems work and it's exactly what is expected of them. Filing to appoint a powerful ally might result in the weakening of the alliance and instability in the kingdom. Similarly, capitalism doesn't have to worry about the corruption of greedy individuals out to make money for themselves without regard for the greater scheme, this is how the system works. If people didn't follow their own desire for personal prosperity, nothing would be produced. Saudi Arabia is not a good example for anything though. The country itself (IE, the land) produces the wealth pretty much autonomously. The people do not have to be productive for the monarchy to have wealth. All government needs to do is provide government services and ensure stability. They don't have to be all that efficient because they can afford to do things the costly way. In other monarchies (EG, neighbouring Jordan) the people have to make the wealth. This creates a completely different dynamic.