3 ms·
Not OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cann
by dorfsmay 13y ago
Not OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person.
- coldtea 13y ago>the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. >and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person If history is anything to go by, they can be even more corrupt and corrupted. Nero was a monarch.
- shawabawa3 13y ago> Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. Recently I've come to think that elected is not better than something completely arbitrary (blood), and may even be worse. At least which an arbitrary decision you might get a nice person, with elections you never seem to
- coldtea 13y agoThe use a lottery -- as the ancient Greeks did for some officials. And pay modestly. Not need to feed and clothe and have huge palaces for a whole range of parasites.