NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?

Nope.
What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.

Nope.
What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.

My thoughts exactly.

given that im not inclined to leave the country i am in now...

sure. if his policies are good for me i dont care that i dont get a vote. if his policies are NOT good for me, im not moving.

Enlightened? Sure. But if the king dies, I'd move out before the lunatic took over. When I studied philosophy, it seemed that in theory the best state is that of a benevolent dictatorship...reality just seems to keep getting in the way :-p

No. No one person can ever be a good ruler.

Enlightened? Sure. But if the king dies, I'd move out before the lunatic took over. When I studied philosophy, it seemed that in theory the best state is that of a benevolent dictatorship...reality just seems to keep getting in the way :-p

I thought that the best government was one where the philosophers ruled?

Sure. I mean, if this king is really enlightened, he'd realize how silly inheriting the right to rule is and appoint a suitable successor, thus eliminating the only problem with such a rule.

I thought that the best government was one where the philosophers ruled?

I believe that was Plato's conception of the idealized aristocracy. Rousseau's argument for a strong central state was basically the case for a benevolent dicatator. Larry Niven wrote a good article on how in a democracy, we teach our future leaders how to win elections, not to lead, whereas in an imperial system, there's no dispute over who'll rule (ideally, in the beginning) and that person can be taught from birth to be a good ruler.

The problem is political entropy, which takes us from Ceasar Augustus to the madmen of Rome's last days.

Still, in the ideal world there is no need for an election. Since we don't live in an ideal world, we need some checks. But in this hypothetical, I say yes.

Well despotism has been known to work in the past. It just doesn't stand the test of time, ya know? Sooner or later, the despot realizes that he can't do anything without the support of his generals/priests/nobles what have you, and it changes into a feudal monarchy or oligarchy. And then the commons need to have their voice heard, and so on.

There are advatages to such a system sure. I'd have no problem living there. I'd just sooner live somewhere with some sort of representation.

That's pretty much what Vetalia is, with more bureaucracy and sentient computer rulers instead of a king.

So, I guess; suffrage doesn't matter too much to me if I've got civil freedoms and the economy is in good shape. It's also provided his self-interest isn't of the Stalinesque variety.

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?

No way, no how. The country described is being run in his best interests, not mine, and I have reason to believe his self interests are the same as mine.

When I studied philosophy, it seemed that in theory the best state is that of a benevolent dictatorship...reality just seems to keep getting in the way :-p

Err... no. There are many different theories, and many of them say no to that.

I thought that the best government was one where the philosophers ruled?

That depends on whether one thinks Plato was actually advocating such a system in the Republic...

I believe that was Plato's conception of the idealized aristocracy.

Again that depends on Plato's intent.

Rousseau's argument for a strong central state was basically the case for a benevolent dicatator.

Rousseau's argument? Did you mean Hobbes' argument?

Larry Niven wrote a good article on how in a democracy, we teach our future leaders how to win elections, not to lead, whereas in an imperial system, there's no dispute over who'll rule (ideally, in the beginning) and that person can be taught from birth to be a good ruler.

Would you happen to remember the title? Or even better, have a link?

The problem is political entropy, which takes us from Ceasar Augustus to the madmen of Rome's last days.

Still, in the ideal world there is no need for an election. Since we don't live in an ideal world, we need some checks. But in this hypothetical, I say yes.

The problem is that political philosophers tend to avoid looking at the way things are, as Machiavelli pointed out in Il Principe. [1 (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter15.html)]

Provided the living circumstances within it were better than those here, sure. In practice, there is very little difference between one vote and zero votes. Though I'd make sure to follow what happened closely in case the government went wonky, it having the potential of drastically changing, and quickly.

Philosopher king much?

What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.Then the respective king must adopt whoever he deems best as successor.

Sure. I mean, if this king is really enlightened, he'd realize how silly inheriting the right to rule is and appoint a suitable successor, thus eliminating the only problem with such a rule.
No, that wouldn't work. In the silly ancap world, the king is only benevolent because he wants to leave a nice country for his son or daughter to be ruler of.

That's the problem with democracy according to them: the ruler can just plunder the country because he or she has no interest in the long-term future of it.

And for the record: I would stay, but only to fight the king and protect all the minorities who he doesn't see fit to enjoy a nice living because it's not in his self-interest.

Nope.
What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.

Seconded. This is the main problem with enlightened despotism.:(

Sure. I mean, if this king is really enlightened, he'd realize how silly inheriting the right to rule is and appoint a suitable successor, thus eliminating the only problem with such a rule.

Like the Roman Empire in the 2nd century. The system, sadly, failed.

Like the Roman Empire in the 2nd century. The system, sadly, failed.

But it was glorious while it lasted.

But it was glorious while it lasted.It always is.

I'd go for it, but I'd damn well make sure that emigration is easy. Just in case, y'know.

Then the respective king must adopt whoever he deems best as successor.

Which can be done if there are no weird inheritance laws like primogeniture. And it also helps out that kings often find their power being removed by close relatives and advisors if they start screwing up.

I thought that the best government was one where the philosophers ruled?

If you believe that, then read C.J. Cherryh's novel Wave Without a Shore. It's set on a planet where society appears to have been designed by philosophers according to the tenets of radical postmodernism, and while most of its inhabitants seem content enough, their sanity is... questionable.

The moral: If you're going to allow yourself to be ruled by philosophers, then choose your philosophy carefully. :p

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?

Of course I would, provided that patrimonial primogeniture is not the basis of succession.

I remain sure that the syllogism" democracy is a bad system of government, but thre rest are much worse", is fundamentally wrong.

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?


I already do.


I live in Dubai, in the Emirate of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates.

His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, Vice President of the United Arab Emirates, is the absolute and sovereign power in Dubai. His word is law.

Under his stewardship, Dubai (and it's inhabitants) have prospered. Construction is up, as is employment and general wealth. The place is a magnet for workers from all over the world owing to its liberal stance (well, liberal for the Middle East) on social issues and its miminal system of taxation. Even many of the very poorest workers are far better off in Dubai than in their home countries (e.g. Iraq).

When you compare Dubai to its neighbouring (and semi-neighbouring) states - Sharjah and Saudi, it is an individualist's paradise. Comparing Dubai to e.g. Ras al Khaimah or Ajman, then Dubai is in the first world and RAK or Ajman are in the Third (very poor, cows in the road and so on).

And he didn't have to do it. The whole of the UAE is underwritten by oil revenue from the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. He has developed it because he wanted to.

Provided the living circumstances within it were better than those here, sure. In practice, there is very little difference between one vote and zero votes. Though I'd make sure to follow what happened closely in case the government went wonky, it having the potential of drastically changing, and quickly.

You better believe it. I read about five newspapers a day because of this.

Nope.
What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.

What I was going to say.

And he didn't have to do it. The whole of the UAE is underwritten by oil revenue from the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. He has developed it because he wanted to.

And there is the fundamental flaw in the system. If he had chosen differently, Dubai would be a totally different place. If his successor choses to undo what he's done, it's undone.

The whims of a single individual, even an enlightened one, are not a solid foundation for sucess, because they are just that - whims. If he makes a bad decision, there's no way to check him. Where power is more distributed, there's less need to worry about the whims of the guy at the top.

I'd rather have to bust my butt every day, than be beholden to another man.

And there is the fundamental flaw in the system. If he had chosen differently, Dubai would be a totally different place. If his successor choses to undo what he's done, it's undone.

The whims of a single individual, even an enlightened one, are not a solid foundation for sucess, because they are just that - whims. If he makes a bad decision, there's no way to check him. Where power is more distributed, there's less need to worry about the whims of the guy at the top.

You can say that. I'm not going to. I have the utmost belief in, and respect for, the leaders of the UAE and their chosen successors.

Incidentally, I am based in Dubai. Doing/saying anything that suggests anything other than the deepest and utmost respect for those who wield executive power on behalf of an absolute and sovereign power, while based in that state is ... unwise.

Unwise both in terms of personal liberty and integrity.

No. No one person can ever be a good ruler.

Not true.

I'd rather have to bust my butt every day, than be beholden to another man.

How very tragic.

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?


No I wouldn't

What would happen when I want to take over? Without any democratic system I'd have to resort to violence. And violence begets injury, and injury begets pain.

no he can never do good for everybody, what if i was the one he didn't do good for.
and i like to live for my own and make my own decisions. not just follow some king because he happens to be enlightened and "for the good of the motherland" etc.

No. Anyone with the power to rule wisely has the same power to undo it.

Incidentally, I am based in Dubai. Doing/saying anything that suggests anything other than the deepest and utmost respect for those who wield executive power on behalf of an absolute and sovereign power, while based in that state is ... unwise.

Unwise both in terms of personal liberty and integrity.

Hence the soveriegn exercises power in his self-interest (he is free) but not in your's (you aren't free).

And by by your own admission, the tyrant must be watched for tyrannical excess...

It all depends on how good a life I live in this country.

of course I would. If someone actually knows what is best it is ridiculous to deny them the right to to put that into practice, just because of a childish need to let the stupid plebs intefere in something they know nothing about (through the process known as "democracy").

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?Well, the right to vote, or lack thereof, wouldn't be much of a difference, considering the party I vote for gets systematically ignored each election.
I really don't know why I even bother anymore, I never get represented in the government.

If s/he truly was a perfect leader (in my eyes), and would be followed by another perfect leader, then sure.

However, that will never exist in reality. There doesn't exist a perfect leader, who will always do what is best for the country, will not be corrupted by power, will make the best decisions all by him/herself... let alone an endless line of them :P

I'd rather he be a dictator...

Democracy has no intrinsic value, and its inefficient, so if it doesn't provide me with better government (which it doesn't in this case because the King is a nice guy), then I won't miss it.

I'd live there.

Sure, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't.

screw monarchy we should be able to elect our leaders

democracy = good

democracy = good
Why? What's good about democracy?

Specifically, if democracy doesn't lead to better government (as this example presupposes), what other benefits does it have?

Why? What's good about democracy?

Specifically, if democracy doesn't lead to better government (as this example presupposes), what other benefits does it have?

1.) we don't have inbred celebrities leading our countries.

2.) people should have some say in their government

3.) The Social Contract is a very true ideal

well what better government do you think democracy leads to?

Nope.
What tends to happen in those is that the good king dies and whoever's next in line is a lunatic.Ever hear of Atlantis?

Well, because most of you have and who it perished in one night and day of fire is because he made love to Aphrodite and got the Smith God made so he poured his molten iron over Atlantis and struck it with his hammer all night afterwards thus destroying it.

1.) we don't have inbred celebrities leading our countries.
If they govern well, who cares?
2.) people should have some say in their government
What if the people are less good at governing?

The presented example presupposed that this benevolent dictator was doing a fine job at governing. But since he wasn't elected, he also wouldn't engage in vote-seeking behaviour or be a pawn of lobbyists or campaign financing.

Democracy has problems, and if you could discard those problems while still getting good government, why wouldn't you?

Ever hear of Atlantis?

Well, because most of you have and who it perished in one night and day of fire is because he made love to Aphrodite and got the Smith God mad so he poured his molten iron over Atlantis and struck it with his hammer all night afterwards thus destroying it.It's a bit silly to ask for a source on a mythological story, but as this differs rather significantly from Plato's account of Atlantis, I can't help but wonder where you got it from.

Besides, everyone knows the Ancients sank the city after they were forced to abandon the Pegasus Galaxy due to the Wraith..

No, I despise everything about monarchy.

screw monarchy we should be able to elect our leaders

And that, of course, means have a numerically superior group of people force their preferred thieving idiot onto the minority. A thieving idiot who has already proven his lack of moral fiber by gaining the support of the various underhanded special interest groups and is only interested in the very proximate future.

democracy = good

This statement = unsupported.

I'd try it out, as long as I'd be free to come and go as I please. I wouldn't want to have to stay if something went horribly wrong. Frankly, I sort of feel like I'm living in an unenlightened monarchy already. Two more years...

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?
Maybe if I were the king. It's good to be king.

And that, of course, means have a numerically superior group of people force their preferred thieving idiot onto the minority. A thieving idiot who has already proven his lack of moral fiber by gaining the support of the various underhanded special interest groups and is only interested in the very proximate future.

QFT.

Let's say that there is a hypothetical country which is owned by a king. He has absolute power, but he is an enlightened absolutist who perfects the country out of his own self-interest. You can live in this place, but you would not have the right to vote. Would you live there?

An example of the above might be the Principality of Monaco. The Prince of Monaco is the absolute ruler. The throne has been held by heredity by the same ruling family, the Grimaldis, since the 14th century, father to son, etc. The Prince has total power to determine how everything goes within his country, except for two very important things. Monaco has no army and does not produce its own fresh water. It gets those from France. Why? Well, the water thing is something technical, but the army thing is part of the original grant of the principality from the King of France to the Grimaldis as a reward for service to France. Thus, the King of France rewarded a person who had done him a military service by making him a prince, but not one who could ever threaten him.

This means that the absolute rulers of Monaco do not have the primary tool necessary to oppress their people, so they haven't done it.

Today, the people of Monaco enjoy guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing, guaranteed full health care coverage, and no taxes, as well as free cable and internet connections, all thanks to one of the past Princes making the very good decision to open up the famous Casino, which pretty much pays for the whole tiny little country -- or all the parts of it France doesn't pay for.

If the next Prince turns out to be a dictator wannabe, he will not get very far, as his army is controlled by a foreign power, and emmigration from Monaco is quite easy. You just cross the street to get into France.

So I might consider living in such an absolute monarchy, if life in the US became untenable, and if I had the money to qualify for immigration to Monaco.