Autocracy

the way the polish kings were elected

you see, what liberal enlightenment faggots don't seem to get is that there is not an inherent injustice in either autocracy or democracy. tyrant by dictator can occur as much as tyranny by mob.
what you ought to be concerned with is the forming of a virtuous upper class that will constitute your ruling class.

so do you want it filled with little more than wealthy capitalists, who's god is money? do you want it filled with those who are simply good at wooing the masses of windowlickers?

In Rome, the West's daddy and senpai, the Legatus was a member of the Senate by default. How many of our senators and public officials today have demonstrated such qualities to deserve their positions?

>so do you want it filled with little more than wealthy capitalists, who's god is money?
Yes.

all fun and games, until you realize they're international hyenas who will sell out your nation for profit

>IQ tests would at least guarantee the 'wise' part.
Bullshit. Go ask Veeky Forums for some MENSA copypasta to see the kind of people muh IQ gets in your club.

Well realistically there's no way but I'll try. Everyone goes through mandatory competence/personality tests in school. Only those who have high intelligence, motivation, and empathy, who test negative for major personality disorders and who above all DO NOT want power are put into a pool of potential autocrats. Then they're chosen at random by an algorithm. Anyone who takes office is allowed to anonymously donate eggs/sperm but is then sterilized and is barred from adoption.

From other posts, the consensus seems to be an elective system within a noble, ruling class. But would the only way to enter this class be by birth? What about the rare prodigy born a peasant?

>who test negative for major personality disorders
Except psychopaths are, generally speaking, the best kinds of leaders.

>democracy
Translation: Non hereditary Aristocratic rule by using puppets to fool the plebs into thinking they run anything.

I'm just falling back on Plato here when i would suggest a schooling system working it's darnedest to seek out those "souls of gold and silver" and bring them into the right light.

How is that going to produce a benevolent leader though?

Democracy has lead to incompetent leaders again and again. Sometimes the right policies are unpopular.

>the consensus seems to be an elective system within a noble, ruling class.

Which would to all policies favoring this ruling class. This would lead to a popular revolt in time.

You make a mighty fine point, user. But shouldn't it be within the capabilities of the great leader groomed by this theoretical system to hold the state together, quelling or appeasing a rebellion?

Benevelonce in a society lile this is defined by the tenents tenents of the given group of people we call society or nation.
In effect, the tenents are a codification of what the nation uniformly believes to be the core of "goodness".
By ensuring that those who dont conform to those perameters cannot achieve a high position and even if they do, cannot use it in a nonbenevolent way, the only resulting effect should benevolent stable autocratic rule.
It depends kf course in the soundness of the founding of such a nation and the practicaloty of applying said core tenents.

Not if this leader were to be elected by an aristocracy that would naturally elect only those that ensure their privilege. This reminds me of the monarchs of the Ancien Régime having to court nobles for funding or any oligarchy trying to remain in power through a puppet as head of state.

Boy Pussy (18+)

That way they don't feel the need to choose their offspring as a successor.

It's not an autocracy if the autocrat is compelled to follow a system

The idea is that if the autocrat is wise enough, he will realize that a certain system in choosing a worthy successor is better for the state than simply trying to establish a dynasty.

>Is there a realistic way to ensure the constant succession of benevolent, wise and talented rulers?
Privatized nations and profit sharing with the citizenry.

Have the contenders play a grand strategy empire-building game. Pick the one with the highest scores in each of those metrics.

Communism as fuck mate.

>Is there a realistic way to ensure the constant succession of benevolent, wise and talented rulers?

If the leader fears God. Roman upper class were relatively impious compared to other empires.

youtube.com/watch?v=omRf4ZPXz6E

No, and there in lies the problem with autocracy.

See Plato's Republic.

Nah, an individual owns the entire nation.
Imagine a privately owned O'neil cylinder, except on earth.

Pain, suffering and struggle create flawed, stressed personalities. Lyndon Johnson and Nixon were both from poverty, and it made them paranoid and anxious to cling to power.

How does this guarantee a leader that will serve the best interests of the people and not just the interests of this priestly class?

No, because people are shit and social structures ossify. Any system you could ever think of will eventually collapse under its own weight.

That's the whole plan.

>Democracy has lead to incompetent leaders again and again.
And autocracy hasn't? It would be easy to name a hundred incompetent autocrats for whatever handful of "enlightened despots" you've idealized. The notion of a person trained their whole life to lead is nice on paper, in reality it produced far more self interested wastrels spoiled from growing up in extreme privilege than it did great men.

Ateast in a democracy you can remove incompetent demagogues peacefully after a few years.

Firts mostly of roman empire were built in Republican period.

Even in the empire Romas was considered a Republican System, for this reason dynasties were not allowed.

This kind of elective monarchy works around 150 years, later legions ruled

The problem is that you are looking for the optimal ruler.
That isn't what you should be looking for. You should be looking for the ruler that will do the least amount of damage to the institutions and laws that manage a society. It is these things, much longer in life than any ruler, that makes society stable enough for people to pursue happiness. Pursuing perfection in rulers will not get you a perfect ruler, it will get you a sociopath who is effective at pretending he is perfect.

Democratic republicanism is the best way to find the best ruler. Deal with it, monarshits.

1. Improve education of the people
2. Requirements to vote each year - military, Civic service, charity
3. Add run off selections
4. Take private money out of elections, only state funded

Crown the eternal God as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

Problems solved.

Avoid the importance of the ruler with a constitution.
Avoid expansion of the state with an explicitly restrictive constitution.
Avoid the importance of the legislature with a constitution that prohibits policies, limits policies such as taxes and tarrifs to a range of values, establishes procedural rules and limitations, and includes a definition for every term/phrase included.

>tl;dr
prevent commie faggots from being able to even propose a law

>when you have candy-boys like Rubio or Jeb running for president

>Neither of them won
>The system works!

>From other posts, the consensus seems to be an elective system within a noble, ruling class. But would the only way to enter this class be by birth?

Mr. Heinlein had a good idea on that. You earn your franchise by voluntary service to the state, service that is risky and requires a real commitment -- demonstrating that at least you put the interest of the whole ahead of your own interests.

Those unwilling to serve are not required to do so, and are citizens without the franchise.

it is impossible until sufficiently advanced AI is developed. technocracy is the true path forward, we just have to find the starting point.

see:

Privatize the government. An individual is vested with absolute authority over governance by the board of directors, but he/she is merely an agent of the board, and can be fired at any time.

Vote for them

Yes, pic related

Juche

How do you make sure this priestly caste doesn't stagnate itself though?

It sounds a lot like the Catholic church which as you know stagnated leading to the reformation.

I happen to like the PLC myself but let's be real here, the szlachta fucked up ALOT

>boards of directors are good at picking people who are:
>talented
sometimes
>wise
again sometimes
>benevolent
Only if you mean "benevolent to the bottom line of the company" obviously not to the masses.

it's tenet not "tenents"

It's Obviously non Primogeniture hereditary succession, so that the best out of the sons become the king so the empire doesn'-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia#Divided_empire,_after_840 OH. nevermind.

Venetian-style aristocratic elective monarchy.