Is it possible to prevent bad kings from ascending into power? Or are all absolute monarchies doomed to fail?
Is it possible to prevent bad kings from ascending into power? Or are all absolute monarchies doomed to fail?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
That's why you have an elective "Presidential" monarchy (Hamilton-type)
Putin-type*
>elective "Presidential" monarchy
>elections become dominated by oligarchs
>they choose weak puppets to be ruler and plunder the nation thereby.
>Kings are selected by gladiatorial combat instead of lineage
>end up with Mike Tyson-style thug as ruler
>oligarchs run circles around him mentally and thus end up controlling the state one way or the other
>Medieval kingdoms were decentralized and it would be easy for a bunch of angry nobles and peasants to band together to overthrow a retarded weak king
This assumes none of the nobles would want a retarded king.
The only solution is no government. Communities could form militias to defend themselves when needed and enforce justice. E.g. the Boers, Caribbean pirates communities.
>The only solution is no government.
>gets divided and conquered by the guys with a strong government
>now your country is not just run for the benefit of oligarchs but foreign ones
influence is as abstract as "psychological warfare".
oligarchs and kings can keep secrets better than the leity.
but we accept their decrees and interviews as truth becuase of our natural inclination to put faith in our leaders.
you can delineate contemporary political dichtomies between people who believe our rulers and those who dont
either way
the teacher can either tell you the truth or manipulate you vinto falling on it like a sword.
It is not possible, the same way it isn’t possible to stop incompetent men from rising to power in a republican government.
The best thing that can be done isn’t to stop them but to blunt the harm they’ll cause with a sensible system of checks and balances.
How do you prevent incompetent men from being in charge of those checks and balances then?
Make them pay enough that people will actually want to do their jobs and prestigious enough that they’re highly sought after, making them competitive positions.
Any position of power is prestigious enough and is competitive and whatever the system is, it always ends up a giant clusterfuck.
Anytime you put someone in a position of power, you roll the dice, and diluting the risks by casting more dices also means you dilute the chance of having only good leaders. Which is just another way of doing things, a more timid one, but not a better one.
Yeah, it's called pretenders.
Kings are selected by gladiatorial combat instead of lineage, there.
>endless line of retards with retard strength
Medieval kingdoms were decentralized and it would be easy for a bunch of angry nobles and peasants to band together to overthrow a retarded weak king. I guess for more modern states this would be (and was) a bigger problem.
>Medieval kingdoms were decentralized and it would be easy for a bunch of angry nobles and peasants to band together to overthrow a retarded weak king
This didn't happen though. Inept and weak kings kept their positions for ages, think Edward II, Richard II and the like.
Sure, In the 21 century it's definitely possible. If there ever was a need or want for a powerful dynasty there could be an institution that raises princes to be athletic, educated and eloquent. But they would never have true absolute power, they would always be ceremonial first and depend upon institutions and other powerful people. As how all long reining dynasties usually end up.
A transhumanist monarchy where the king is an immortal god. Problem solved.
I hate monarchy so much it's unreal.
>Or are all absolute monarchies doomed to fail?
It’s the most retarded system but they last a long while.
Gaelic Ireland had a solution to this; Tanistry. Their system of inheritance by law required that the king:
>Not have any serious mental problems
>Not have any serious physical problems
For example if someone was considered to be incapable of ruling, or was corrupt, or was considered weak, they were generally excluded from the election of a King. Irish law favoured Kings who were not only mentally and physically capable but those who were either well versed in the law or who were served by the best Brehons (legal experts).
The very best parts of Tanistry were excellent, too bad it made centralisation so hard.
A good people will stop a bad king
Should Chad King just appoint whoever he wants before he dies?
Aka a person he thinks is most like himself?
They'll just end up appointing their own retarded kid most of the time. The only way this works best is when the monarch doesn't have any kids of their own. Look at the five good emperors. First 4 chose capable heirs to rule and adopted them as their own sons since they didn't have any of their own. Then Marcus Aurelius is the first one to actually have a retarded son and fuck everything up.