7 ms·

The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions. Have you ever considered whether o

The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions. Have you ever considered whether or not this is actually true? Sure we have a government run school system that tells us that our government is the best ever. But you know, that's what government run school systems do. When you look at specific transitions from monarchy or aristocracies to democracy, do you see an improvement in the quality of government? Did the transition from Louis the XVI to Robersspierre improve government? The transition from the Bourbon Kings of Naples to a unified democratic government? From Czar Nicholas the II to the Russian Provincial Government? Did the reform act of 1887 improve governance in Britain? Did it usher in a golden age - or destroy one? Did the transition from aristocracy to Jacksonian democracy in 1820's America improve the level of governance? Did the universal suffrage Act of 1870 improve goverance in Germany? How about eliminating the emperor and creating the Weimar Republic? How about going from Ian Smith to Mugabe in Zimbabwe? To me the lessons from history are pretty clear. Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Burke? Is that you? "Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy." If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies? We're veering off into historicism versus reductionism here. I don't think there has to be as much of a conflict as some do, but it's best to leave that for another day.
- bokonist 17y ago
  If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies? They were superior in terms of quality of governance. They were inferior at war. The monarchies were defeated militarily by democracies.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Assuming your point for a minute, it seems that your idea of governance does not include self defense. Not sure how useful a great leader would be without the ability to defend/protect the populace. Isn't protecting the lives of the governed a little higher on the importance ladder than ability to formulate and implement policy?
    - bokonist 17y ago
      Yes. But two points: 1) the military superiority of democracy was due to its ability to mobilize mass conscript armies. At the time, winning wars was a matter of bodies. Post 1945, great power wars are determined by of nukes, planes, and missiles. The age of mass armies is over. 2) Even if democracies were still superior military, monarchies and aristocracies could recognize the fact and nip them in the bug before they became dangerous.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Shudda, wudda, cudda, bokonist. (ie, counterfactuals and supposition are a poor-man's way to argue history) What if my grandmother had wheels? Would that make her a trolley? I'd love to go down point by point with all of your earlier examples. Sounds like fun. But we're already 47 levels deep in this thread, and we're probably the only two who care about it. Suffice it to say that you have basically two choices. You can argue some line of Hegelism, that truth is relative and over time the dialetic of history advances certain societies that are more fit. If this is the case, then the proof is in the pudding: looking back over the last couple of hundred years should give you the survivor/evolved societies, which are, badda boom badda bing, the democracies. Or you can argue some line of reductionism: there are true things that don't change. Societies that are based on these truer things do better than those which aren't. I believe this is more of both of our lines of argument. But even in this case, we're still back to survivorship: no matter what their great qualities, aristocratic societies have consistently underperformed in national defense. Indeed, if anything European history is a prime example of the various wars and conflicts all caused because somebody's cousin claimed a title and somebody's uncle didn't want them to get it. Thomas Paine did a wonderful job of demolishing the idea of kingship. There is no doubt that some people would naturally be able to do certain things better than others. This is self-evident. Where we cross paths is the idea of a stratified society in which a ruling class assumes those roles for life due to blood relations or other unearned criteria. In my opinion, a rotating system based on popular support carries all the benefits of both aristocracy and democracy at the same time. That old representative republic idea still makes the most sense. If you want to add a layer of quasi-permanent public service bureaucracy, on it fine, but we're just splitting hairs at that point.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Burke? Is that you? "Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy." If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies? We're veering off into historicism versus reductionism here. I don't think there has to be as much of a conflict as some do, but it's best to leave that for another day.

bokonist 17y ago
If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies? They were superior in terms of quality of governance. They were inferior at war. The monarchies were defeated militarily by democracies.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Assuming your point for a minute, it seems that your idea of governance does not include self defense. Not sure how useful a great leader would be without the ability to defend/protect the populace. Isn't protecting the lives of the governed a little higher on the importance ladder than ability to formulate and implement policy?
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Yes. But two points: 1) the military superiority of democracy was due to its ability to mobilize mass conscript armies. At the time, winning wars was a matter of bodies. Post 1945, great power wars are determined by of nukes, planes, and missiles. The age of mass armies is over. 2) Even if democracies were still superior military, monarchies and aristocracies could recognize the fact and nip them in the bug before they became dangerous.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      Shudda, wudda, cudda, bokonist. (ie, counterfactuals and supposition are a poor-man's way to argue history) What if my grandmother had wheels? Would that make her a trolley? I'd love to go down point by point with all of your earlier examples. Sounds like fun. But we're already 47 levels deep in this thread, and we're probably the only two who care about it. Suffice it to say that you have basically two choices. You can argue some line of Hegelism, that truth is relative and over time the dialetic of history advances certain societies that are more fit. If this is the case, then the proof is in the pudding: looking back over the last couple of hundred years should give you the survivor/evolved societies, which are, badda boom badda bing, the democracies. Or you can argue some line of reductionism: there are true things that don't change. Societies that are based on these truer things do better than those which aren't. I believe this is more of both of our lines of argument. But even in this case, we're still back to survivorship: no matter what their great qualities, aristocratic societies have consistently underperformed in national defense. Indeed, if anything European history is a prime example of the various wars and conflicts all caused because somebody's cousin claimed a title and somebody's uncle didn't want them to get it. Thomas Paine did a wonderful job of demolishing the idea of kingship. There is no doubt that some people would naturally be able to do certain things better than others. This is self-evident. Where we cross paths is the idea of a stratified society in which a ruling class assumes those roles for life due to blood relations or other unearned criteria. In my opinion, a rotating system based on popular support carries all the benefits of both aristocracy and democracy at the same time. That old representative republic idea still makes the most sense. If you want to add a layer of quasi-permanent public service bureaucracy, on it fine, but we're just splitting hairs at that point.