4 ms·
No one is comparing Richard III to Barack Obama. They’re questioning whether Richard III was better or worse than his peers. Table stakes for a king through mos
by nindalf 3y ago
No one is comparing Richard III to Barack Obama. They’re questioning whether Richard III was better or worse than his peers. Table stakes for a king through most of history is providing stability and peace within the realm. This guy failed to do that.
This Sith like attitude of “there are only bad kings” is indicative of a mind lacking in nuance or critical thinking.
- pharmakom 3y agoParent was simply pointing out that kings are not good in a moral sense, even if they might be considered good in an effectiveness sense.
- roenxi 3y agoThey aren't good in an effectiveness sense. They only manage to be good relative to other ineffective forms of governance. Statistically some kings might manage to be outliers, but even then to be genuinely effective one suspects they'd be best known for dismantling the monarchy and bringing in either a democracy or republic. Even an oligarchy probably has better odds than a monarchy.
- yesbut 3y agoHis peers were bad too.