7 ms·

Is his opinion really weird when a strong centralized leader (kings, emperors, etc.) was the norm until very very recently? Seems like it's more a return of the

Is his opinion really weird when a strong centralized leader (kings, emperors, etc.) was the norm until very very recently? Seems like it's more a return of the political theory of of "enlightened absolutism" that was popular amongst philosophers in the 18th century, or maybe something like Confucius' ideas on government.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
Yeah. You should read what Schopenhauer had to say about government, and this was barely 150 years ago, in the mid 19th. > "In general, the monarchical form of government is that which is natural to man; just as it is natural to bees and ants, to a flight of cranes, a herd of wandering elephants, a pack of wolves seeking prey in common, and many other animals, all of which place one of their number at the head of the business in hand. > "Every business in which men engage, if it is attended with danger — every campaign, every ship at sea — must also be subject to the authority of one commander; everywhere it is one will that must lead. Even the animal organism is constructed on a monarchical principle: it is the brain alone which guides and governs, and exercises the hegemony. Although heart, lungs, and stomach contribute much more to the continued existence of the whole body, these philistines cannot on that account be allowed to guide and lead. That is a business which belongs solely to the brain; government must proceed from one central point. Even the solar system is monarchical. On the other hand, a republic is as unnatural as it is unfavourable to the higher intellectual life and the arts and sciences. Accordingly we find that everywhere in the world, and at all times, nations, whether civilized or savage, or occupying a position between the two, are always under monarchical government. The rule of many, as Homer said, is not a good thing: let there be one ruler, one king. In general, I think that those experiments in autocracy that have taken place between 1850-Present rather disprove this notion. (One of the rare things old Schop was wrong about!) The Athenians were right: The affairs of state must be the affairs of every citizen. England's problems won't be solved by a restoration of the Stuarts (I think that the current Stuart heir is a 50 year old banker who is exceedingly uninterested in the job) but they can possibly be solved by dispensing with parliament and enabling qualified citizens to vote directly on laws and regulatory matters. I dare say you won't end up with butter knife bans this way.
- CooCooCaCha 1y ago
  The counter-argument is that even if you say democracy is sub-optimal, it’s certainly more stable than monarchy. Monarchy sounds good when you have a benevolent philosopher-king that does all the right things, but what if you get a bad king? That could mean decades of poor leadership. With a monarchy, lighting has to strike over and over again.
  - A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
    Yet throughout history monarchies have been, by and large, more stable than democracies. There are well-attested dynasties that have lasted for many centuries -- the Zhou, Abbasid, and Rurikid dynasties were all in power for >700 years! The Abbasid dynasty was at last conquered by the Ottomans -- themselves a >600-year dynasty. Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years? "Certainly more stable than monarchy" -- nothing certain about it! History teaches just the opposite. Sure, from time to time you get a bad emperor. Rome was lousy with bad emperors, towards the end. They tended to be "managed" by their handlers/Praetorians, and the empire marches on. And Chinese history is basically like: Strong+cunning warrior leads a rebellion and establishes a dynasty, seizing the Mandate of Heaven. His heir, though still vigorous, is less strong and less cunning. His heir is weaker and duller still. By the 10th generation the emperor is a ne'er-do-well who does nothing but eat and write insipid poetry, and the empire is left to eunuchs and oligarchs who loot the populace. Rebellion ensues, a new warrior starts a new dynasty, and so it goes... This predictable cycle was stable for well over 1000 years.
    - frm88 1y ago
      "Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years" For varying degrees of democracy: Athens: ~ 510-310 BC (yes yes 200) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy Rome: ~ 509 - 027 BC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic Venice: 697-1797 AD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice to name the most commonly known.
roughly 1y ago
I recommend “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow - they do a good job dispelling this myth.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

Yeah. You should read what Schopenhauer had to say about government, and this was barely 150 years ago, in the mid 19th. > "In general, the monarchical form of government is that which is natural to man; just as it is natural to bees and ants, to a flight of cranes, a herd of wandering elephants, a pack of wolves seeking prey in common, and many other animals, all of which place one of their number at the head of the business in hand. > "Every business in which men engage, if it is attended with danger — every campaign, every ship at sea — must also be subject to the authority of one commander; everywhere it is one will that must lead. Even the animal organism is constructed on a monarchical principle: it is the brain alone which guides and governs, and exercises the hegemony. Although heart, lungs, and stomach contribute much more to the continued existence of the whole body, these philistines cannot on that account be allowed to guide and lead. That is a business which belongs solely to the brain; government must proceed from one central point. Even the solar system is monarchical. On the other hand, a republic is as unnatural as it is unfavourable to the higher intellectual life and the arts and sciences. Accordingly we find that everywhere in the world, and at all times, nations, whether civilized or savage, or occupying a position between the two, are always under monarchical government. The rule of many, as Homer said, is not a good thing: let there be one ruler, one king. In general, I think that those experiments in autocracy that have taken place between 1850-Present rather disprove this notion. (One of the rare things old Schop was wrong about!) The Athenians were right: The affairs of state must be the affairs of every citizen. England's problems won't be solved by a restoration of the Stuarts (I think that the current Stuart heir is a 50 year old banker who is exceedingly uninterested in the job) but they can possibly be solved by dispensing with parliament and enabling qualified citizens to vote directly on laws and regulatory matters. I dare say you won't end up with butter knife bans this way.

CooCooCaCha 1y ago
The counter-argument is that even if you say democracy is sub-optimal, it’s certainly more stable than monarchy. Monarchy sounds good when you have a benevolent philosopher-king that does all the right things, but what if you get a bad king? That could mean decades of poor leadership. With a monarchy, lighting has to strike over and over again.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
  Yet throughout history monarchies have been, by and large, more stable than democracies. There are well-attested dynasties that have lasted for many centuries -- the Zhou, Abbasid, and Rurikid dynasties were all in power for >700 years! The Abbasid dynasty was at last conquered by the Ottomans -- themselves a >600-year dynasty. Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years? "Certainly more stable than monarchy" -- nothing certain about it! History teaches just the opposite. Sure, from time to time you get a bad emperor. Rome was lousy with bad emperors, towards the end. They tended to be "managed" by their handlers/Praetorians, and the empire marches on. And Chinese history is basically like: Strong+cunning warrior leads a rebellion and establishes a dynasty, seizing the Mandate of Heaven. His heir, though still vigorous, is less strong and less cunning. His heir is weaker and duller still. By the 10th generation the emperor is a ne'er-do-well who does nothing but eat and write insipid poetry, and the empire is left to eunuchs and oligarchs who loot the populace. Rebellion ensues, a new warrior starts a new dynasty, and so it goes... This predictable cycle was stable for well over 1000 years.
  - frm88 1y ago
    "Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years" For varying degrees of democracy: Athens: ~ 510-310 BC (yes yes 200) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy Rome: ~ 509 - 027 BC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic Venice: 697-1797 AD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice to name the most commonly known.

roughly 1y ago

I recommend “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow - they do a good job dispelling this myth.