Is there a "better" system than democracy?

[J.L.W]

Thinking about the problems with democracy... Stefan mentions them occasionally. Such as if you incentivise governments to only consider 5 years into the future then they will not care more than five years into the future and will do things like take loans for other governments to pay off.

The blunt force of government and the ease with which the system seems to be able to be corrupted. For instance, how the police can be made to arrest social media users rather than acid attackers/ rape gangs in the UK.

I would like to read in depth Stefan's Everyday Anarchy which would be a solution to this but I may or may not have the time! Does anyone else think about this? I'm just frustrated by how obviously flawed and unworkable the system of democracy seems to be!

And as far as democracy goes there are a lot of things to consider but one of them is that a person who was propagandised and has very little interest in politics has the same vote as someone who reads it day in and day out.

That sometimes in a two party system each one is unworkable as the other.

That any attempt to reform the two party system usually ends up with Proportional Representation and rainbow coalitions.

That one biased politician represents a whole area. Some of which are constituents that care about things this person doesn't care about... I.e. a leftist politician and someone that cares about immigration.

That some policians because of this system do horrendous things to gain power. Such as ignoring rape gangs.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I think AnCap, as described by Stefpai, is best but not within arm's reach of attainability because it requires a moral, reasonable, empathetic and culturally homogenous society to make happen (at least from what I understand; I haven't listened to or read about Stefpai's ideas on AnCap in a while so maybe I'm wrong about what he considers requirements but I at least thing those 4 things are required).

Therefore, within the realm of governments, I consider monarchism of some form to be ideal. 

Disclaimer: I don't think it is possible for a government of any type to last forever, be incorruptible, or otherwise be free of excess and abuse. I do however think each form of government has a window of how good it can be versus how bad it can be and where it tends to hang around.

Disclaimer II: When I speak of what I consider superior forms of government, I am speaking (unless I specify otherwise) in the context of people with a culture and/or ethnic background like Americans, Englishmen, and other Anglosphere places/races/cultures as I don't think there is a universally preferable or ideal form of government for everyone. I think ultimately every race, culture, IQ bracket, etc. has its own best form of government tailored to its own strengths and weaknesses as a people, culture, etc. 

And let my (brief) case begin...

What I am arguing for ultimately is a system where there is a hereditary ruler from an elite family checked by other hereditary rulers of other elite families. In other words, a Holy Roman-style of monarchism where the aristocracy is largely to voting base while the emperor is ultimately their "final vote" or "last say" to push things one way or another when the aristocratic cliques are politically tied. I would want to incorporate a Roman Republic-era aspects such as required military service for males as well as elected representatives to form a group of think tanks and suggesters to lobby the existing aristocrats into voting where they think this best--not make decisive political swings. I think only people who own land ought to have political say, and anyone who owns land (even if it's just the land under their house) ought to be considered "noble" and held to "noble" standards, with greater political sway defined by martial service, title, and wealth. So a, to pretend America was a neo-Roman Republic, the Duke of New York is worth more in voting than the Count of Pittsburg or Count of Cheltenham or whatever. A simple, tiered system of some sort where the lowest voter might be the families that own their house (vote based on family, not individuals) followed by families that are knighted, families that are counts, earls, dukes, princes, kings, and finally the imperial family. 

I won't bother to offer any more detail into my ideal of monarchism because I believe, ideally, it would be composed of WASPy Christian Conservative types who thus vote based on that general set of moral and civil principles and therefore the trend would be towards civil liberty, lawfulness, virtue, and capitalism rather than collectivism, atheism, multikult, socialism, etc.

I offer 3 advantages I perceive this system to have over Western republicanism and 3 disadvantages. All of this is assuming we're talking about America as much of what I will say may not apply elsewhere.

1: With only the competent people with bloodlines composed of successful and productive people allowed to vote, there will be little chance of a resurgence of modern easy welfare and a generally above-average and thoughtful voting base that can't be outbred or mobbed. I think this general principle applies everywhere; I think even Saudi Arabia is better off with (whatever they have) over liberal democracy because chances are the average Saudi aristocrat is both more moral and intelligent than the average Saudi citizen or countryman.

2: Because only land-owners can vote, people are unlikely to make votes that would harm the value of their land as their children are going to inherit it and have to do damage control while in a democratic system most voters don't own the land under their feet and a large minority of Americans actually consume from the labors of productive Americans, the theft sanctioned by a government a majority comprised of a greedy and voracious minority voted in. Because the poor can't vote to steal all the money from the rich, it will be far less likely for the country as a whole to collapse as a result from the short-sightedness of the lower classes.

3:  Because in general higher IQ=more likely to be moral=more likely to be conscientious, combined with a heavily Christian and morally-humble culture, having a group of people that is most likely to be pretty decent folk in charge is likely to have the best results. At least compared to having hobos, thieves, deadbeats, and losers hold the same voting weight as professors, professionals, businessmen, generals, and inventors. 

Having stated these 3 advantages, I will concede 3 disadvantages as I know them.

1: Over time I think the bloodlines will become less and less competent on average, thus leading to a time where leadership is in the hands of the average but lucky rather than the competent heirs of similarly competent people. However this might be correctable if a noble can be de-nobled via losing his wealth and status. I don't know of any monarchial system where there isn't some form of "you're out" in terms of kicking out no-longer-noble nobles but I assume over time cliques will be formed to cover for the slack of increasingly incompetent nobles. So the older the bloodlines, the more likely they are to be receded to the mean of the population.

2: America was once formed by this style of voting; there's a decent chance that unless we have a Never Again moment with popular enfranchisement, that we'll just follow old habits and destroy the theoretical empire.

3: High IQ people can be capable of great evils when they lose their morals and their consciences. High IQ atheists and moral relativists are perhaps even more dangerous than low IQ atheists/amoralists. 

I mentioned a few policy ideas, so I'll state why I have them so you can understand where I'm coming from.

Required Military Service: To be clear, I'm not saying we should be fighting people all the time. I mean we should spend at least from age 18-20 getting trained to be good soldiers so when war DOES happen we're ready for it. And in peace time it'll help people on average keep healthy by at least having an example to learn from. Plus it'll make men across the country more brotherly with each other as ideally the drilling years will involve rotating around the country, thus exposing the men to all of America's regions and cultures and making them more empathetic to their fellow Americans rather than "regionalists" (as in "against people of other regions"). 

Families Only Vote: Either this or Male Only voting. I think women shouldn't vote no matter what because they aren't at risk of being drafted and generally suck when they fight in wars as well as turn the males against each other on the same side. There's a reason why militaries throughout history have been boys clubs and keeping even prostitutes was in many places illegal in the military; it's because men are better at fighting and protecting each other when they aren't competing for women among them.

I am not sure whether votes should be based on the weight of families (and thus within families, the majority of males= the family's vote) or if it should be just Male Only. I don't think women should vote or hold public office because most females vote with even more carelessness and sentimentality than most male voters and also most female politicians suck even more than most male politicians. I've even seen this in female vs. male rulers as well. See Queen Victoria I, Elizabeth II, and Saint Isabella of Spain for more on this. 

Hereditary Family Rule: It seems pretty conclusive based on the history of European and Asian ruling families that they tend to act within a window depending on the family. For a great example: see the Tokugawa Shogunate, especially the descendants of Hidetada Tokugawa. For an example of how they can generally suck, see the Tokugawa shoguns that descend from Hidetada's younger brother after Hidetada's last direct descendant died without successors to choose from within. For more moderate examples: see the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Hohenzollerns, and House of Luxembourg. Family definitely matters in terms of their window of how good vs. bad they can be; the Rurikids of Russia tended to have a lot of radical princes/tsars while the Habsburgs of the Holy Roman Empire tended to have very moderate and neither especially bad nor good Kaisers/kings. 

 

Conclusion;

I am a bit tired as of writing this, so I might not be arguing as well as I could be, but in spite of that I think I've provided a good case for monarchism (Roman style) over republicanism. Please criticize me and debate me on certain points as I want to make my best case for the future; so far I believe monarchism to be generally superior to republicanism and therefore a good transition before anarcho-capitalism. 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim
I wanted to make this clearer and easy to argue against as it's a lot and I don't expect everybody to read all of it carefully.

[RichardY]

Better for whom? Had I been born into a tribal & conquest orientated "Mohammedaic religion" I'd probably be living it up right now, with multiple wives in the UK.

1) Military Dictatorship - Possibly Centralised under a Monarchy. Would require mass bloody repression.
2) Aristocratic - Decentralised Commonwealth Republic. Back local law enforcement and army to the hilt. As you have no option. Emphasis on Decentralisation.
3) Anarchic - Despite thousands of years of genetic and ideological seperation. Everyone agrees to hold hands and mutually disarm. Not for the forseeable future.
4) Plutocratic Republic - Corporate. But with what? Mostly densely populated country in the World, with ethnic tensions. Why not base in Singapore or Switzerland.
5) Buearucratic - Communism/Socialism, but with massive internal ethnic conflict. Just going to be ignored.
6) Democratic - Though ultimately Plutocratic in nature. Delayed fuse.
7) Theocracy.
 

I think option 2 or 7 are the most viable.

[Jsbrads]

Benevolent Dictatorship: Hong Kong

[violet]

Oh yeah, I think about this - but I never get very far... life is busy. Democracy is held up as a shining star of fairness and the height of civilization. But it definitely has problems.

I think of it as quite a leftist idea, really. Everyone has the vote. Everyone is equal. Doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, engaged or disengaged, male or female, etc. 

I can see the temptations of the orderliness of a system of monarchy and maybe it could work for a while. However, organizing social power along herditary lines seems like a recipe for disaster - it’s all based on a name and not on the merits of the individual person.

I imagine a “better” system would be a slightly more limited democracy. People do not get a vote just because they have a heartbeat and are 18+ years old. It seems to me that anyone voting for how government resources will be used should be paying into the pool of resources. So to earn a vote, you would have to be paying “so much” in taxes per year.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

44 minutes ago, violet said:

I can see the temptations of the orderliness of a system of monarchy and maybe it could work for a while. However, organizing social power along herditary lines seems like a recipe for disaster - it’s all based on a name and not on the merits of the individual person.

It's held up by families and their incentive to maximize local productivity. It's nearly the opposite financial incentive from modern republics and is far more stable because most families have limited variance per generation and the longest lasting families tend to be highly conservative and cautious with their policy making. They also check each other.

Considering how much genes affect the history of family lines, a strong argument for aristocratic rule is that they are far more predictable and when the right families are in charge there is far less room for corruption and disaster compared to the bipolar republican system. 

[smarterthanone]

Monarchy is the best.

[J.L.W]

Stefan did do a video of this and his response is to give it all up to the free market.

Who knows? These are such big questions.

[RichardY]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:16 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Conclusion;

I am a bit tired as of writing this, so I might not be arguing as well as I could be, but in spite of that I think I've provided a good case for monarchism (Roman style) over republicanism. Please criticize me and debate me on certain points as I want to make my best case for the future; so far I believe monarchism to be generally superior to republicanism and therefore a good transition before anarcho-capitalism. 

Monarchs were murdered in Early Roman history, given a mix of italic races and frequent immigration to Rome. Monarchy is dependent on family & clan loyalty. One major reason they had a Republic more often then a Monarchy. The Emperors had moral authority (imperative), but there was still a Republic, before it was gutted. France for example was a Republic under the Emperors.

If you take Iceland as an example, having a monarchy would be stupid. What is actually going to fund the monarchy? Monopolies are impractical there if enforced by a monarchy. And there is no local or regional threat. Monarchies need high value(addictive/corrupting) goods, Ivory, Gold, Oil, spices, premium alcohol, manufacturies, in order to grant monopolies to leverage any power. For instance, Drugs in Morroco (Monarchy). Drugs & Child slavery, Thailand (Monarchy). Plus it's a death sentence to criticise the King in those countries. They're backed by the USA, so any dissent has no chance. 

Besides the Monarch is often corrupted, addicted to something or blackmailed in someway. Probably pestered for no end of favours or "protected" for some benefit. Best they can do for themselves is keep out of the way, and live it up, probably.

Carthage Republic
Dutch Republic
French Republic
Roman Republic
Republic of Venice
England. Often governed by a Regency Council.(functionally a Republic at times)

Republics literally kick ass pound for pound, in flesh. Monarchies have to be genocidal to sustain themselves, otherwise they're just a figurehead, may have eugenics benefits in terms of physical fitness. No state would be best, even Plato says so in the first few pages of the Republic, stopped reading after that.

Though with tribal loyalties and conquest & domination, highly prevelant in many human hearts, you're not going to get rid of the state, unless you get rid of or manage that first. Personally I think the state should involve open payment in blood or self-funded. Skin in the Game type of thing. Either way, why watch soap operas or horrors when you can read about people getting chewed up for real, as entertainment?...no, Black humour. They should have a way of overcoming things though, otherwise that's just boring. Played too many videogames perhaps. I wonder if it is a good idea to try and plumb the depths of a "heart of darkness". Musing perhaps.

Peace is preferable, not worse then zero sum, though if backed into a corner, who loses least badly and survives over who does not, prevails.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Monarchs were murdered in Early Roman history, given a mix of italic races and frequent immigration to Rome. Monarchy is dependent on family & clan loyalty. One major reason they had a Republic more often then a Monarchy. The Emperors had moral authority (imperative), but there was still a Republic, before it was gutted. France for example was a Republic under the Emperors.

I've changed my stance somewhat since to be in favor of the Japanese style of monarchy that was going on under the Tokugawa Shogunate. See that for details. 

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

If you take Iceland as an example, having a monarchy would be stupid. What is actually going to fund the monarchy? Monopolies are impractical there if enforced by a monarchy. And there is no local or regional threat. Monarchies need high value(addictive/corrupting) goods, Ivory, Gold, Oil, spices, premium alcohol, manufacturies, in order to grant monopolies to leverage any power. For instance, Drugs in Morroco (Monarchy). Drugs & Child slavery, Thailand (Monarchy). Plus it's a death sentence to criticise the King in those countries. They're backed by the USA, so any dissent has no chance. 

Besides the Monarch is often corrupted, addicted to something or blackmailed in someway. Probably pestered for no end of favours or "protected" for some benefit. Best they can do for themselves is keep out of the way, and live it up, probably.

I have not done any research of modern monarchies (especially third-world ones) however I know enough of European and Asian monarchies to know that what you say is only true for some countries in some times and totally untrue for other countries and other times. And, before I go any further, can you name me a single monarchy with as much blood on its hands as the secular/republican/non-monarchist states of the 20th century? Especially compared to (former monarchical) Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, America, Cuba, etc.? Now, I'm not saying all these countries were totally terrible for the last one hundred years. But I am saying we have a hell of a lot more blood on our hands since WWI... 

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Carthage Republic
Dutch Republic
French Republic
Roman Republic
Republic of Venice
England. Often governed by a Regency Council.(functionally a Republic at times)

Republics literally kick ass pound for pound, in flesh. Monarchies have to be genocidal to sustain themselves, otherwise they're just a figurehead, may have eugenics benefits in terms of physical fitness. No state would be best, even Plato says so in the first few pages of the Republic, stopped reading after that.

Name me a single genocidal monarchy. I'd be tempted to name "Japanese Empire" for you, but in its defense it was no longer an effective monarchy as the Shogunate (arguably the real monarch for the last 1,000 years) was overthrown and a dictatorship of politicians and ex-nobles and warlords had seized control. 

Even more I dare you to name a single monarchy that required genocide to sustain itself. I think you've watched too much Game of Thrones because even the very worst of rulers were mild and limited compared to Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Castro, Mao, etc. and in general they were much more of the Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Trump, Obama, and Buchanan level of good vs. evil. Generally quite mild and consistent. (Almost) Literally every Holy Roman Emperor (exaggerating but this is a notable trend) was a depressed drunk who spent his days arguing and defending his country rather than sanctioning genocide or radically reforming (for better or worse) his nation. Great guys like Charlemagne, Ivan the Great (not his grandson the Terrible), Ieyasu Tokugawa, and Charles Martel were rare but so too were the Borgias, Ivan the Terrible, or Hideyoshi Toyotomi. 

In fact, I'd wager ye average monarch was a mild-mannered debater who kept the status quo more than anything. Occasionally there were economy-wreckers or warmongers but in general the aristocracy kept them in check. In general no one died as a direct result of government policies (because, in part, the government officials--aristocrats--directly profited from a happy and healthy populace whereas in Republics they just take their lobby money and leave before the crap hits the fan. These guys had an incentive to plan for the long term).

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Though with tribal loyalties and conquest & domination, highly prevelant in many human hearts, you're not going to get rid of the state, unless you get rid of or manage that first. Personally I think the state should involve open payment in blood or self-funded. Skin in the Game type of thing. Either way, why watch soap operas or horrors when you can read about people getting chewed up for real, as entertainment?...no, Black humour. They should have a way of overcoming things though, otherwise that's just boring. Played too many videogames perhaps. I wonder if it is a good idea to try and plumb the depths of a "heart of darkness". Musing perhaps.

Peace is preferable, not worse then zero sum, though if backed into a corner, who loses least badly and survives over who does not, prevails.

If you want peace, establish a decentralized aristocracy. if you want war, establish a federal republic. 

Best example I have of a good monarchy: the Tokugawa Shogunate. Literally the worst Shoguns were dog lovers, preachers who loved Confucius, a wastrel who liked wine and poetry, and a guy who liked swords and broke the then-historically-strong economy patronizing swordsmiths. I don't know about you but  I kinda prefer having my worst leaders be dog lovers and fiscally irresponsible over cynical rapists, anti-patriotic foreigners, warmongers, and/or city-nukers. Especially I prefer it when foreign policy is consistent and foreign leaders trust our word and loyalty rather than starkly changing every 8 years.

The fact America (and most other democratic-republics) is practically a different country every 4-8 years ought to say enough about the inherent danger of the bipolar republican system.

[smarterthanone]

Monarchy is best because of its typical decentralization and somewhat capitalistic workings. If you bought a house, then another and another etc. etc. and in an ancap society. What is to stop you from enacting by contract all sorts of control over the population? Its all by lease agreements. Essentially you could by contract rule your land almost however you see fit.

The thing is that one person, or small group of people have a difficult time holding large amounts of land and power. See history of the world. There is a reason nobody has ever conquered the world. MOST of the closest were not monarchies, although a few definitely were like Genghis Khan if I remember correctly.

It's easier to satisfy a man, than it is its people. Is your life much different between say owning all of Germany vs owning all of Germany AND France? No. But you have to risk you life to gain both so... you might just stick with one. lol. Is this always true? No way. But I can tell you right now, no system is perfect, so we don't need to find the perfect system, just compare current systems at this point.