Does history show that monarchy was right after all?

I guess monarchy isn't the answer then.

Hey I'm an anti-monarchy guy, I was just saying that I frame it in my mind not as democracy being more practical, but being more moral if you are a moral relativist. I can understand how moral absolutists believe in the promise of monarchy.

And I'm saying that doesn't work. It's a difference of how leaders are chosen, not what they believe. If you believe in moral absolutism, why would that make you want to support inherited leadership, which is essentially a crapshoot? If anything you should support elections, to make sure you get the right person. (And if the majority is immoral, then it's hopeless anyway.)

I have never considered the idea that people who believe in objective moral and political truths would find the whole project of society a failure if the majority is immoral.

If you look at Confucianism or modern day technocratic elitism and the managerial state, it seems like a lot of self-righteous people want to be the ones leading the pack of ostensibly immoral and uneducated proles.

That's oligarchy and not dictatorship/monarchy of course, but its still the argument for aristocracy. Though I suppose the hereditary element is the part that has been discredited, not the idea of a ruling group of supposedly superior elites.

It's not correct. A ruler with good intentions would want a political system that was effective at producing polices that help the people, and to do that they'd need an extensive and binding polling system, and they'd have to not interfere with it as a matter of course.

So it would have to be a democracy.

That's the problem of a crown being passed along via bloodline. Do what the Antonine emperors did and adopt your heir based on evaluation over competence, leadership and such.

>Tito
No clue, how much did he value the welfare of the people since that's a pretty big part of it.

>Wilhelm II
Fookin el oh el

Really just look at a lot of the late 18th century monarchs to get a good idea of what it was considered: Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Leopold II, Emperor Joseph II, Carlos III, etc.

>Leopold II

>good for his subjects

>Leopold II
You though you could throw that in, in the middle, between all the other names, so no one would notice? lel

tbf he was marginally good for Belgium proper.

So for most of his subjects he was no good.

Anyone who picks a minority of subjects to be good to can do it: see every despot whether they're considered enlightened or not for examples. Maybe not Stalin.

I meant Joseph II's brother you dunce. He rolled back some his brother's reforms as emperor (otherwise the nobles would've continued revolting) but look him his reign as Grand Duke of Tuscany.

>However, Leopold developed and supported many social and economic reforms. Smallpox inoculation was made systematically available, and an early institution for the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents was founded. Leopold also introduced radical reforms to the system of neglect and inhumane treatment of those deemed mentally ill. On 23 January 1774, the "legge sui pazzi" (law on the insane) was established, the first of its kind to be introduced in all Europe, allowing steps to be taken to hospitalize individuals deemed insane. A few years later Leopold undertook the project of building a new hospital, the Bonifacio Hospital (it). He used his skill at choosing collaborators to put a young physician, Vincenzo Chiarugi, at its head. Chiarugi and his collaborators introduced new humanitarian regulations in the running of the hospital and caring for the mentally ill patients, including banning the use of chains and physical punishment, and in so doing have been recognized as early pioneers of what later came to be known as the moral treatment movement.

So he looked out for the nobles. That is how enlightened despots get their reputation.

Weren't most residents of the Congo actually just "employees" of various multinational corporations, rather then subjects of the King's privately owned regions?

They were living in a country owned by a person, that makes them subjects. Leo just preferred private companies to do his oppressing, rather than a more modern military outfit.

>What the people want is what is good for the people
>I have a perfunctory understanding of history and have no idea what Enlightened Despotism was before this shitpost brought it to my attention

Stay where you came from

>A ruler with good intentions would
>I am now going to peddle my subjective opinion as fact

Almost missed this

>And if the majority is immoral, then it's hopeless anyway

>If my argument is failible I will dismiss it's faults entirely
>MONARCHISTS BTFO

But one person does know what is good for every person?

How else could a ruler with good intentions enact them? They'd need accurate feedback from the population, and they'd need a system for making day to day decisions without their direct oversight. By the time an enlightened despot has established a system that will allow them to be an enlightened despot, they are no longer despots.

By this logic democracy would not be a valid political system either.

But yes, indeed a person can know what is "good" for another. Humans have predictable preferences and shared needs.

I assume that you're a huge liberal faggot if you're trying to defend democracy this hard so if you want an example of the masses not knowing what is good for themselves look at Brexit of Drumpf

>They'd need accurate feedback from the population

Consulting the population worked, although monarchs were considered Depots long before contemporary polling.

>By the time an enlightened despot has established a system

Which would not be necessarily democratic

> they are no longer despots.

Depends on how you define despot

that's just sugar-coated despotism, not true democracy

A democracy can only stand if the plebeians are well educated, otherwise aristocracy/monarchy or very limited democracy in the form of republicanism is necessary

>By this logic democracy would not be a valid political system either.

In democracy one person doesn't choose for everyone.

>Consulting the population worked, although monarchs were considered Depots long before contemporary polling.

It's the only way to know what to do.

>Depends on how you define despot

They have direct oversight of every function of the state. They couldn't possibly make every decision, and they couldn't appoint people who would make every decision as they would, so they need a system that is focused on making decisions that benefit the population, not one that tries to guess what the despot will guess is the best policy.

>I have never considered the idea that people who believe in objective moral and political truths would find the whole project of society a failure if the majority is immoral.

The failure is not "the whole project of society," it's getting the right person in charge. If the majority is good, democracy works. If not, nothing works. Even if you believe in the inherent, unassailable genetic superiority of an aristocratic class, in the long term the bulk of the common people must consent to be governed.

>In democracy one person doesn't choose for everyone.

In democracy a person which is in every way as humans as a despot is making a decision which affects all under the jurisdiction of a democratic state.

If a privileged despot with access to education about administration is unqualified to differentiate what is good for the populace nor is the voter.

>so they need a system that is focused on making decisions that benefit the population

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by this

It's not about one person desire but population necesity for long time.

>In democracy a person which is in every way as humans as a despot is making a decision which affects all under the jurisdiction of a democratic state.

They're making decisions that will help themselves, like the despot. In representative democracies they don't really get to, so we get a lot of voting against your interests.

>If a privileged despot with access to education about administration is unqualified to differentiate what is good for the populace nor is the voter.

So a truly enlightened despot will want education about administration to be widespread.

>I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by this

They need whatever system they have for discovering the needs and desires of the people, and implementing policies that will further them, to operate without their oversight. It's not possible to make all the decisions.

>They're making decisions that will help themselves, like the despot. In representative democracies they don't really get to, so we get a lot of voting against your interests.

What is the point you are trying to make?

>So a truly enlightened despot will want education about administration to be widespread.

We're making leaps here. What does incentivizing education have to do with a despot's enlightenment?

>They need whatever system they have for discovering the needs and desires of the people, and implementing policies that will further them, to operate without their oversight. It's not possible to make all the decisions.

The despots still decree laws. The institutions which are you describing enforce them - Which does not take away from the despotism of the conventional definition of the term "enlightenet despot:

It's more that Joseph II introduced rather radical reforms and more than that he was determined to push them through kind of obstinately. He had good intentions but was very "my way or the highway" about doing things.

History shows that no matter what a society will eventually grow out of a monarchical system. One of Aristotle's students (as historians refer to as Pseudo-Aristotle), wrote the Athenian Constitution in which he argued that every society goes through 4 stages of political development: a Monarchy, Oligarchy, Tyranny, and finally a Democracy. In Athen's case though, they fucked up democracy by literally voting to disband it, but no matter where you look there is always evidence of this constantly shifting political spectrum.

People eventually get fed up with a monarchy (rule by one) which causes them to revolt, and without leadership appoint the few (an oligarchy) to take control. Eventually these few become extremely rich and powerful and once again are overthrown. In this case, a player would assume total power by means of popular revolution (Tyranny), and in the time of chaos, would seize all power for the good of the nation. A tyranny is extremely unsound and really would never work, giving way to the Democracy and power to all people. But eventually democracy as we have seen does not hold up because even in the US we elect our officials through a Republic system, hence the electoral college.

Pssst
Hey kid

Constitutional monarchy.