4 ms·
In that case, you defeated your own argument because if you dismiss historical democracies (which I agree with) then you’re left with modern democracies which h
by CooCooCaCha 1y ago
In that case, you defeated your own argument because if you dismiss historical democracies (which I agree with) then you’re left with modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience.
But I also fully acknowledge that invalidates my argument as well. However, I still think the stability of monarchies is overstated. Just because a dynasty lasts for 700 years doesn’t mean it was stable.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoUh, yeah, which is why "democracies are certainly more stable than monarchy" doesn't make any sense. > modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience. lol, dude. Western democracy has been been on the wane for a long time now, and it's unironically just about over. The West is either going to continue down its path towards less democracy and plutocrat/oligarch/jurist rule with politics as bread and circuses (very bad, an intensification of what we have right now) -- or make a hard break towards more democracy and prole/populist mob rule (not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a political extremist like, perhaps ironically, Yarvin himself.) Polybius saw it all, in his day. <-- Ochlocracy <--> Democracy <--> Oligarchy -->