6 ms·

I certainly prefer an elected president, and others making these decisions, compared to some dictator or king doing so. One, if making poor decisions, can ofte

I certainly prefer an elected president, and others making these decisions, compared to some dictator or king doing so. One, if making poor decisions, can often be replaced in a few years. The other cannot. Yet in both cases you may end up with a poor choice in the role. Not sure why you think democracy is worse at this, than a dictatorship or hereditary king like system.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
A king being replaced after a few years of making poor decisions isn't exactly an unknown occurrence.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Yet it doesn't happen without, essentially, a plot, perhaps the kingdom in civil war, and the next leader is just the next in line, with no real debate on worthiness either. As well, kings have also been known to hold power through decades of poor decisions.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Well, I am certainly in favor of democracy, but the existing modell with the way its election system works, you could probably describe as an long series of plots. Just usualy without bloodshed.
    - bbarnett 5y ago
      You want people who care, and are passionate enough to strive to lead, to effect change they see as important. I agree that this alway needs tweaking, improvements. And some countries need more election laws to help clean things up a bit. But there will always be strife, otherwise, everything is perfect, therefore, why even try to change the status quo?
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Well, I would say, that the various election and power systems were made in a time without digital, instant communication. I believe a fundamentally better approach is possible today. One where it is more easy for the voter to directly influence - and not be limited to a short choice and a long theater leading up to it. Liquid democracy for example brings some new concepts.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  Technically in the UK a monarch can only rule with the consent of Parliament, but given our last experience of republicanism was a repressive Puritan state the idea is still somewhat tainted in the public eye. Ironically, there’s an argument that some of America’s tendencies are a result of the influence of the fleeing Puritans who were deposed by the Restoration.
Y_Y 5y ago
Does it really look like my comment is arguing for dictatorship or hereditary monarchy over democracy? My intention was only to point out an unfortunate aspect of the system as it existed at the time. Proposing improvements wasn't something I wanted to get into, but here are some changes I think are improving the situation: greater involvement of civil servants, civilian committees, more comprehensive procedures for using classified information, non-governmental inspectors, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. Incidentally I don't think an crown and scepter helps much, the UK is a hereditary monarchy (and a democracy) and has had a proportionate share of questionably-justifiable nuclear escalation.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Does it really look like my comment is arguing for dictatorship or hereditary monarchy over democracy? Yes, it did, for you specifically mentioned one form of government. My intention was only to point out an unfortunate aspect of the system as it existed at the time. Fair enough.
AussieWog93 5y ago
There was an interview I saw with Stephen Fry where he was talking about empiricism vs rationality and brought up this specific point. Despite all reason, it seems that countries with (constitutional) monarchies are by and large better places to live than countries with elected heads of state. He doesn't understand why, and can think of many reasons why this shouldn't be the case, but the evidence doesn't lie.
- twic 5y ago
  I wonder if this is really about an elected head of state or a powerful head of state. Ireland, Germany, and Austria all have elected but mostly ceremonial heads of state, and seem fine. Or it could just be about a country being older, and so more stable.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  It could be the causality runs backwards: historically stable countries have never felt the need to overthrow their ceremonial head of state.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
Personally I favour an apolitical head of state, I’m not too fussed whether they’re a figurehead monarchy like the UK or some other form of selection but I think giving a single politician kingly powers is a monumentally bad idea. I prefer a cabinet with collective responsibility making the actual decisions, preferably indirectly appointed by a democratically elected parliament rather than direct popular vote (which can only lead to deadlock eventually). The head of state not being a politician helps a lot with this. Politicians who reach the top tier are as a breed inherently untrustworthy, anyone who seeks power for its own sake is usually morally unfit to wield it. Concentrating all this power in the hands of a single man or woman is tempting fate with disaster, collective responsibility is like the “two man rule” on steroids. We’ve seen how dangerous a presidential style of government is here in the UK which traditionally uses a parliamentary system, we’ve seen Parliament sidelined in favour of unaccountable executive diktats throughout both Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic including really dangerous policies like the abolition of the right to protest. I think power in general is best made as diffuse as possible, the problem at least in the UK is that the system is based on gentleman’s agreements in a place that’s long stopped being gentlemanly. The system is designed on the premise that nobody ever goes into Parliament and lies, the idea that bad actors can exist among MPs is anathema. What we actually need is a system that admits bad actors are rife in politics and is actively designed to limit the harm they can do. We need a system that’s institutionally distrustful, a system that treats corruption like blasphemy rather than tacitly encouraging it, a system where political power is treated like plutonium - extremely useful but also extremely dangerous with plenty of safeguards to prevent disaster. I want a system of government that’s designed by cynics and pessimists, not a system that’s effectively a rabbit warren for the wealthy and powerful to protect their interests.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  >the right to protest. There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would need to be inferred from precedent. Second, the UK has no strong practice of allowing protests, especially on very contentious issues. The UK system is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic, because it was founded before the idea of a constitution was really a thing, and there have been no revolutions since, so it has essentially developed as an oligarchy which has slowly incorporated democratic elements when put under intense pressure (e.g the Chartist movement, the suffragettes, etc). All of these movements were violent, and the members were subject to extreme state violence. The UK is a liberal democracy today essentially because it became impossible for the state to contain the labour movement without democratizing - and the result is a bunch of systems (FPTP, the cabinet, etc) that are a compromise between an essentially undemocratic state and a society that's basically democratic in mentality.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

A king being replaced after a few years of making poor decisions isn't exactly an unknown occurrence.

bbarnett 5y ago
Yet it doesn't happen without, essentially, a plot, perhaps the kingdom in civil war, and the next leader is just the next in line, with no real debate on worthiness either. As well, kings have also been known to hold power through decades of poor decisions.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Well, I am certainly in favor of democracy, but the existing modell with the way its election system works, you could probably describe as an long series of plots. Just usualy without bloodshed.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    You want people who care, and are passionate enough to strive to lead, to effect change they see as important. I agree that this alway needs tweaking, improvements. And some countries need more election laws to help clean things up a bit. But there will always be strife, otherwise, everything is perfect, therefore, why even try to change the status quo?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Well, I would say, that the various election and power systems were made in a time without digital, instant communication. I believe a fundamentally better approach is possible today. One where it is more easy for the voter to directly influence - and not be limited to a short choice and a long theater leading up to it. Liquid democracy for example brings some new concepts.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
Technically in the UK a monarch can only rule with the consent of Parliament, but given our last experience of republicanism was a repressive Puritan state the idea is still somewhat tainted in the public eye. Ironically, there’s an argument that some of America’s tendencies are a result of the influence of the fleeing Puritans who were deposed by the Restoration.

Y_Y 5y ago

Does it really look like my comment is arguing for dictatorship or hereditary monarchy over democracy? My intention was only to point out an unfortunate aspect of the system as it existed at the time. Proposing improvements wasn't something I wanted to get into, but here are some changes I think are improving the situation: greater involvement of civil servants, civilian committees, more comprehensive procedures for using classified information, non-governmental inspectors, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. Incidentally I don't think an crown and scepter helps much, the UK is a hereditary monarchy (and a democracy) and has had a proportionate share of questionably-justifiable nuclear escalation.

bbarnett 5y ago
Does it really look like my comment is arguing for dictatorship or hereditary monarchy over democracy? Yes, it did, for you specifically mentioned one form of government. My intention was only to point out an unfortunate aspect of the system as it existed at the time. Fair enough.

AussieWog93 5y ago

There was an interview I saw with Stephen Fry where he was talking about empiricism vs rationality and brought up this specific point. Despite all reason, it seems that countries with (constitutional) monarchies are by and large better places to live than countries with elected heads of state. He doesn't understand why, and can think of many reasons why this shouldn't be the case, but the evidence doesn't lie.

twic 5y ago
I wonder if this is really about an elected head of state or a powerful head of state. Ireland, Germany, and Austria all have elected but mostly ceremonial heads of state, and seem fine. Or it could just be about a country being older, and so more stable.
HPsquared 5y ago
It could be the causality runs backwards: historically stable countries have never felt the need to overthrow their ceremonial head of state.

BoxOfRain 5y ago

Personally I favour an apolitical head of state, I’m not too fussed whether they’re a figurehead monarchy like the UK or some other form of selection but I think giving a single politician kingly powers is a monumentally bad idea. I prefer a cabinet with collective responsibility making the actual decisions, preferably indirectly appointed by a democratically elected parliament rather than direct popular vote (which can only lead to deadlock eventually). The head of state not being a politician helps a lot with this. Politicians who reach the top tier are as a breed inherently untrustworthy, anyone who seeks power for its own sake is usually morally unfit to wield it. Concentrating all this power in the hands of a single man or woman is tempting fate with disaster, collective responsibility is like the “two man rule” on steroids. We’ve seen how dangerous a presidential style of government is here in the UK which traditionally uses a parliamentary system, we’ve seen Parliament sidelined in favour of unaccountable executive diktats throughout both Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic including really dangerous policies like the abolition of the right to protest. I think power in general is best made as diffuse as possible, the problem at least in the UK is that the system is based on gentleman’s agreements in a place that’s long stopped being gentlemanly. The system is designed on the premise that nobody ever goes into Parliament and lies, the idea that bad actors can exist among MPs is anathema. What we actually need is a system that admits bad actors are rife in politics and is actively designed to limit the harm they can do. We need a system that’s institutionally distrustful, a system that treats corruption like blasphemy rather than tacitly encouraging it, a system where political power is treated like plutonium - extremely useful but also extremely dangerous with plenty of safeguards to prevent disaster. I want a system of government that’s designed by cynics and pessimists, not a system that’s effectively a rabbit warren for the wealthy and powerful to protect their interests.

pasabagi 5y ago
>the right to protest. There are two problems here: first, there never was a right to protest, formally. The UK has no constitution, so any such right would need to be inferred from precedent. Second, the UK has no strong practice of allowing protests, especially on very contentious issues. The UK system is deeply and fundamentally undemocratic, because it was founded before the idea of a constitution was really a thing, and there have been no revolutions since, so it has essentially developed as an oligarchy which has slowly incorporated democratic elements when put under intense pressure (e.g the Chartist movement, the suffragettes, etc). All of these movements were violent, and the members were subject to extreme state violence. The UK is a liberal democracy today essentially because it became impossible for the state to contain the labour movement without democratizing - and the result is a bunch of systems (FPTP, the cabinet, etc) that are a compromise between an essentially undemocratic state and a society that's basically democratic in mentality.