Even the best monarchs do not justify monarchy; it is a position inherently created for abuse. You may have a good king, or two, or ten - even kings who WILL put your wellbeing before their own interests - but invariably they will always be outnumbered by those who seek the position for the sake of abuse, or who succumb to the structure of the position which encourages abuse. Likewise with landlording. The problem isn’t with individuals, the problem is with the system.
It’s a persistent myth because the institution is set up to perpetuate it. Everything bad is the nobles, the lords, the boyars, the merchants. But if the king, all-powerful and distant, only KNEW about these abuses…
If I can make decisions unilaterally, I’ll be more efficient not having to seek as much agreement from stakeholders, as long as we assume I’ll make good decisions.
I think benevolent dictatorship can exist but only for a couple generations at best, and that is also probably exceedingly rare.
Greed being a virtue these days and corruption running rampant probably lowers these odds.
And all rulers grades are still subject to whatever constraints and opportunities their situation places them in. Without Philip investing in army and drill, Alexander could never have done what he did. Also I’m sure having an external enemy to loot and enrich your people’s is a big lever too.
I think the more interesting modern question is about democracy versus single party rule like CCP. If the big benefit of democracy is we get more and better ideas and efficiency through private industry, how does the Internet making all information globally free and the global economy change that? I fear democracy loses a lot of inherent advantage in the same way Chinese companies steal IP or copy other products.
They also have the efficiency similar to the dictators. They can much better execute 40 year plans without having to switch parties and priorities every decade. How does democracy beat that in the information age?
Yeah. Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient government type. The only problem is the odds of getting benevolence plus the impossibility of keeping it.
It’s way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can’t distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.
No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.
I like this answer - succinct and to the point, but the last sentence is vague because “bad revolutionary” could mean “incompetent revolutionary” or “evil revolutionary” (am I missing a third meaning?). I’m assuming you didn’t mean evil, but even so, an “incompetent” revolutionary could have issues with the execution of the revolution (eg. lack of courage) or with the desired outcome (eg. rallying behind a populist cause blindly). Would you care to clarify?
I believe they were paraphrasing part of a CGP Grey video, and if so, then “bad revolutionary” would mean a revolutionary not fit to revolt. Either by hunger, general weakness, or incompetence.
Even the best monarchs do not justify monarchy; it is a position inherently created for abuse. You may have a good king, or two, or ten - even kings who WILL put your wellbeing before their own interests - but invariably they will always be outnumbered by those who seek the position for the sake of abuse, or who succumb to the structure of the position which encourages abuse. Likewise with landlording. The problem isn’t with individuals, the problem is with the system.
The “benevolent king” is a persistent myth isn’t it? They feature in so, so many works of fiction
It’s a persistent myth because the institution is set up to perpetuate it. Everything bad is the nobles, the lords, the boyars, the merchants. But if the king, all-powerful and distant, only KNEW about these abuses…
If I can make decisions unilaterally, I’ll be more efficient not having to seek as much agreement from stakeholders, as long as we assume I’ll make good decisions.
I think benevolent dictatorship can exist but only for a couple generations at best, and that is also probably exceedingly rare.
Greed being a virtue these days and corruption running rampant probably lowers these odds.
And all rulers grades are still subject to whatever constraints and opportunities their situation places them in. Without Philip investing in army and drill, Alexander could never have done what he did. Also I’m sure having an external enemy to loot and enrich your people’s is a big lever too.
I think the more interesting modern question is about democracy versus single party rule like CCP. If the big benefit of democracy is we get more and better ideas and efficiency through private industry, how does the Internet making all information globally free and the global economy change that? I fear democracy loses a lot of inherent advantage in the same way Chinese companies steal IP or copy other products.
They also have the efficiency similar to the dictators. They can much better execute 40 year plans without having to switch parties and priorities every decade. How does democracy beat that in the information age?
Yeah. Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient government type. The only problem is the odds of getting benevolence plus the impossibility of keeping it.
lmao what
It’s way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can’t distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.
No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.
I like this answer - succinct and to the point, but the last sentence is vague because “bad revolutionary” could mean “incompetent revolutionary” or “evil revolutionary” (am I missing a third meaning?). I’m assuming you didn’t mean evil, but even so, an “incompetent” revolutionary could have issues with the execution of the revolution (eg. lack of courage) or with the desired outcome (eg. rallying behind a populist cause blindly). Would you care to clarify?
I believe they were paraphrasing part of a CGP Grey video, and if so, then “bad revolutionary” would mean a revolutionary not fit to revolt. Either by hunger, general weakness, or incompetence.
Reminds me of the rules for rulers video by cgp grey
Yup. That video explains the problem very well.