4 ms·

> However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Swede

> However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, UK, NZ and Japan. Because it has nothing to do with wealth? The detrimental financial costs of monarchies are a drop in a nation's budget. Just as the prime minister gifting his best friend 1 million euro per year from the nation's budget wouldn't really impact matters much overall in a nation that deals with billions each year. It would still be quite corrupt, of course. > It might be the existence of a monarch unites society in some way Of course not, it is almost always a decisive issue in countries that have a monarchy. In republics, almost everyone agrees that republics are better, but in monarchies the issue divides the population, and those that are in favor of retaining the monarchy are almost always traditionalists who desire to do many senseless things simply because they are tradition and are afraid of change. History has always sided with the progressives, for no man wants change for it's own sake. When a man desire change, he typically has thought well of it, and desires a change for a reason, but when a man desires that matters stay the same, he very thought little of it, and wishes that they remain so for their own sake.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Don’t fall for survivorship bias though. The graveyard is full of progressive societies that died.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  It's also full of conservative ones that died. There is no survivorship bias here without an argument that conservative societies do not die. My argument that the progressives are usually right is not empirical, but rational. disclaimer: I should note that with “conservative” and “progressive”, I do not mean the U.S.A. identity politics terminology, that has little to do with either conservation or progression, but the simple definition of aiming for change or for inertia.
yccs27 6y ago
Sorry, I don‘t buy your last argument. You could argue the opposite: When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. Yet no system is perfect, and most changes have some tradeoff. When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason. This line of thought is based on Chesterton‘s fence [1]. Of course, a well thought-out change is still a good thing, and not all reasons for the current system are sensible. I count myself as a progressive as well, but it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton'...
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own. If there be legitimately flaws in the system that he wishes to address, it will be far easier to convince the collective by pointing out said flaws. > When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason. And the big thing you leave out: that many, many men simply desire inertia for it's own sake and are afraid of change for no other reason than that it be change. There are almost none in comparison who seek change for it's own sake, simply because they are afraid of matters staying the same.
  - MockObject 6y ago
    > The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own. So political propaganda rarely works? Every political action is sold as beneficial to the many, but how many of them actually are? I feel like political dynamics are rather a bit less straightforward than you're portraying.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Don’t fall for survivorship bias though. The graveyard is full of progressive societies that died.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
It's also full of conservative ones that died. There is no survivorship bias here without an argument that conservative societies do not die. My argument that the progressives are usually right is not empirical, but rational. disclaimer: I should note that with “conservative” and “progressive”, I do not mean the U.S.A. identity politics terminology, that has little to do with either conservation or progression, but the simple definition of aiming for change or for inertia.

yccs27 6y ago

Sorry, I don‘t buy your last argument. You could argue the opposite: When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. Yet no system is perfect, and most changes have some tradeoff. When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason. This line of thought is based on Chesterton‘s fence [1]. Of course, a well thought-out change is still a good thing, and not all reasons for the current system are sensible. I count myself as a progressive as well, but it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton'...

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own. If there be legitimately flaws in the system that he wishes to address, it will be far easier to convince the collective by pointing out said flaws. > When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason. And the big thing you leave out: that many, many men simply desire inertia for it's own sake and are afraid of change for no other reason than that it be change. There are almost none in comparison who seek change for it's own sake, simply because they are afraid of matters staying the same.
- MockObject 6y ago
  > The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own. So political propaganda rarely works? Every political action is sold as beneficial to the many, but how many of them actually are? I feel like political dynamics are rather a bit less straightforward than you're portraying.