4 ms·

You can't go back and forth between theoretical and real-life. I don't accept the claim that democracies are always better than monarchies. Monarchies and autho

You can't go back and forth between theoretical and real-life. I don't accept the claim that democracies are always better than monarchies. Monarchies and authoritarian states are great in theory, if they enforce the worldview you want. Look at how America's republicanism has allowed its own self-degradation through lobbying and regulatory capture. My first point is that everything in the real world is case by case and it's intellectually dishonest to go for such grade-school arguments as saying that democracy = good, monarch = bad. Capitalism can be good or bad. Monarchies can be good or bad, etc. My second point is that the only common theme is that some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create.

andrepd 5y ago
Disagree entirely. Ironically it's your "systems don't matter, it just depends on whether the people in charge are good or not" that is grade-school level. x) First, I didn't say democracy good, monarchy bad... My point is precisely that western bourgeois democracy is pretty flawed. It is however better than the absolutist monarchies of the 1700s and 1800s. >some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create. That's just silly. A well designed system has institutions, checks and balances that prevent bad actors from wrecking the system. An absolutist monarchy has none. Can't you see how that matters? Taking your argument to its conclusion, then absolute monarchies, bourgeois democracies, direct democracies, soviet-style totalitarianism... it's all the same! All it matters is if you're lucky that the people in charge are good.

andrepd 5y ago

Disagree entirely. Ironically it's your "systems don't matter, it just depends on whether the people in charge are good or not" that is grade-school level. x) First, I didn't say democracy good, monarchy bad... My point is precisely that western bourgeois democracy is pretty flawed. It is however better than the absolutist monarchies of the 1700s and 1800s. >some humans are bad actors, therefore it doesn't matter how your society functions, there will always be people who exploit the system. The only reason you think monarchies is bad is because historical monarchs have been abusive. But there have also been abusive democratic leaders. Humans are the problem, not the systems we create. That's just silly. A well designed system has institutions, checks and balances that prevent bad actors from wrecking the system. An absolutist monarchy has none. Can't you see how that matters? Taking your argument to its conclusion, then absolute monarchies, bourgeois democracies, direct democracies, soviet-style totalitarianism... it's all the same! All it matters is if you're lucky that the people in charge are good.