3 ms·
> The only odd thing about a noble class in that sense is that we decide the job of "role model and leader" should be hereditary. I don't think it's odd at all
by nemo44x 4y ago
> The only odd thing about a noble class in that sense is that we decide the job of "role model and leader" should be hereditary.
I don't think it's odd at all, in fact it's pretty normal when you look at a long stretch of history. I'd wager that heredity based monarchy is probably the most common form of regime.
- shadowgovt 4y agoInteresting! So I'd never really thought about this dimension before, but yes: at least among monarchies, hereditary monarchy is the most common form. Whether it's the most common form of government is unclear. In modern times, democracy is most common. I think what was most common historically might be a complicated question and changes in terms of how it's asked (in terms of distinct governments, total territory controlled, or total population loyal to?).
- nemo44x 4y agoToday yes. But until the 19th century, heredity based monarchy was the most common form of government historically. Monarchy is still the most common form of organization as well. For instance, every corporation is a monarchy with a board that acts as the king/queens court and executives that represent the remaining nobility. Same with Military arrangements. It's probably a reason that these forms of organization tend to dominate others, like collectives, etc. Strong leadership from the top will always be optimal. Of course, weak leadership from the top is fatal. I'll add: Consider there are 3 forms of organization: Rule by 1, Rule by some, and Rule by many. These can be broken into 6 implementations, 2 for each form. Monarch/Tyrant, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, Democracy/Populism. There's interesting relationships between these 6 and what some historians believe are natural transitions from 1 to another: Monarch->Aristocracy->Democracy->Oligarchy->Populist->Tyrant
- shadowgovt 4y agoI like to expand the though "strong leadership from the top will always be optimal" with what it's optimizing for. It has benefits for speed and specificity; as long as the chains of communication are open and clear, what the group should be doing is easy to understand. That's much muddier in a distributed leadership system. And, of course, that centralization carries good and ill. At different points in time, it can be detrimental to centralize authority so. But even countries like the United States, which generally pride themselves on decentralized democratic rule, have various emergency powers abilities for wartime consolidation of authority behind the Executive (and President specifically). Apart from that note, I agree with everything here.
- JAlexoid 4y ago> every corporation is a monarchy No... Not at all. Not that many large cap corporations(large capital organizations, not Mom and Pop Inc) have one exclusive owner. None of the publicly traded corporations are monarchies at all.
- nemo44x 4y agoSure they are, CEOs are the King/Queens. They have full control on decisions and do as they please more or less. If they don't perform then they are replaced with a new monarch. Monarchs can be challenged and deposed and often were. A monarch that was not doing a good job was often in defense of themselves from rivals.
- JAlexoid 4y agoReplace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense. As a person making this claim, you are failing miserably to make a case that CEO is a monarch. (Mostly because you don't know what it means to be CEO or a monarch)
- nemo44x 4y ago> Replace the word CEO with President, Prime Minister, Branch Manager, Head of Labor Union - and it'll make as much sense. They all have massive limits on their powers as compared to a CEO. They work with parliaments, etc. They can be vetoed easily. I'll grant it isn't a perfect analogy. A CEO doesn't have unlimited power granted by god and has to answer to a board and therefore shareholders. But in essence, the idea of having a singular ultimate decision maker/leader rather than having a small group vote on decisions or have the entire company vote makes it a de-facto monarchy.
- JAlexoid 4y agoIt's a very bad analogy, because CEO's operate within a charter. CEOs isn't even the top position at all companies, typically it's the chairman of the board... that can literally tell the CEO to can it. In fact almost all CEOs can be vetoed by the board of directors and even at certain times - individual shareholders. Your analogy is, again, rooted in lack of knowledge(aka ignorance) of corporate structures. The CEO of my startup right now, where she literally owns 51%, still must go to the board for any impactful decision. And any C level exec can call the board. LLCs are generally autocratic, but that isn't "any corporation".
- properclass 4y agohereditary democracy isn't uncommon