6 ms·

Which one is NK? It's hereditary rule on the third generation, and as such I guess it fits what you mean by "ruler chosen at random".

bluGill 2y ago
A Monarch is a dictator who managed to stay in power long enough to pass the position on to more generations. This comes with culture changes such that they can act like a monarch instead of a dictator.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  Based on my reading about history, I sketch the situation as follows: In pre-industrial societies, having a king was considered the mark of a developed state. The king was seen as a divine or semi-divine figure. Democracy popped up every so often, but it had a tendency to end in chaos, enhancing the legitimacy of the nobility. It's only in the past few hundred years that we've seen a reversal, where democracy is now considered the legitimate form of government. The lack of legitimacy is a big problem for dictatorships, and creates the need for repression. There's also an adverse selection problem in modern times -- since 'everyone knows' that democracy is the more ethical form of government, those who volunteer to be dictator tend to be unethical.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Reading between the lines though, I suspect that isn't quite correct even though a simple reading of history says that. Remember the victors write history. The great dictator tends to be good at war, and so they write history. Democracy doesn't select the great war leaders and so they lose to the better generals, who in turn become kings and then write how bad other forms are to secure their legitimacy.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      This book did a lot to inform my sketch: https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Industrial-Societies-Anatomy-Pre-Modern-World/dp/1780747411/ https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Industrial-Societies-Anatomy-Pre-... I don't think she says anything about democracy at all. It doesn't seem to have been common in pre-industrial times.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Representative democracy as we think of democracy - didn't exist much from what I can tell (I'm not an expert in history though). However small villages tended to have the "elders" gather to deal with government matters which looks a lot like direct democracy (and has significant problems - "busy bodies" are more likely to attend and make decisions for the average person who is trying to do something else with their limited time).
0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
Great question. Maybe it's sort of an in-between case. They seem pretty deep down the repression doom loop at this point. It's too bad we don't have a stronger tradition of amnesty for repressive rulers -- offering them a cushy requirement in order to let someone else take the helm.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  *retirement, not requirement
int_19h 2y ago
NK is a theocratic monarchy with a God-Emperor cult.

bluGill 2y ago

A Monarch is a dictator who managed to stay in power long enough to pass the position on to more generations. This comes with culture changes such that they can act like a monarch instead of a dictator.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
Based on my reading about history, I sketch the situation as follows: In pre-industrial societies, having a king was considered the mark of a developed state. The king was seen as a divine or semi-divine figure. Democracy popped up every so often, but it had a tendency to end in chaos, enhancing the legitimacy of the nobility. It's only in the past few hundred years that we've seen a reversal, where democracy is now considered the legitimate form of government. The lack of legitimacy is a big problem for dictatorships, and creates the need for repression. There's also an adverse selection problem in modern times -- since 'everyone knows' that democracy is the more ethical form of government, those who volunteer to be dictator tend to be unethical.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Reading between the lines though, I suspect that isn't quite correct even though a simple reading of history says that. Remember the victors write history. The great dictator tends to be good at war, and so they write history. Democracy doesn't select the great war leaders and so they lose to the better generals, who in turn become kings and then write how bad other forms are to secure their legitimacy.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    This book did a lot to inform my sketch: https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Industrial-Societies-Anatomy-Pre-Modern-World/dp/1780747411/ https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Industrial-Societies-Anatomy-Pre-... I don't think she says anything about democracy at all. It doesn't seem to have been common in pre-industrial times.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Representative democracy as we think of democracy - didn't exist much from what I can tell (I'm not an expert in history though). However small villages tended to have the "elders" gather to deal with government matters which looks a lot like direct democracy (and has significant problems - "busy bodies" are more likely to attend and make decisions for the average person who is trying to do something else with their limited time).

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

Great question. Maybe it's sort of an in-between case. They seem pretty deep down the repression doom loop at this point. It's too bad we don't have a stronger tradition of amnesty for repressive rulers -- offering them a cushy requirement in order to let someone else take the helm.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
*retirement, not requirement

int_19h 2y ago

NK is a theocratic monarchy with a God-Emperor cult.