[Eran]

I am surprised nobody mentioned Hoppe's arguments for favouring monarchy over democracy:

1. In a democracy, elected officials can extract short-term benefits out of their position, but have no long-term stake in the well-being of the State. In a hereditary monarchy, on the other hand, the State is effectively the private property of the King. As such, he has an interest in the long-term well-being of the State.

2. In a monarchy, the nature of the ruler is random - he might be a ruthless dictator, but he could also be a kindly old man. In a democracy, on the other hand, the rulers have been selected in a competitive process to be the most power-hungry, silver-tongued fraud perpetrators available.

[starman2003]

As such, he has a stake in the long-term well-being of the State.

Unfortunately, the history of monarchy is replete with idiots who don't seem to care much about anything. What's the use of making arguments like this--real monarchy is gone for good.

Basically the problem with democracy is not the elected officials, crummy as many are. It's the tendency to promote individual interests at the expense of the State. That's what the voters want.

[Andropov]

The lack of any "checks and balances" is the only real drawback to authoritarianism. Why do you think autocrats won't go the same way as the monarchs did; become lazy and spoiled and become a liability to the nation.

[Eran]

Why do you think autocrats won't go the same way as the monarchs did; become lazy and spoiled and become a liability to the nation.

Power corrupts. Democracies are not exempt. Politically-powerful people and organizations become lazy, spoiled and a liability on the nation. In democracies, however, the politically-powerful become much more proficient at hiding and/or excusing their exploitation.

[Wolfman]

I've seen Libertarians say that Monarchy is better than Democracy by default because Monarchy is private government and Democracy is public government. Your ilk says very strange things.

[Preston Cole]

1. In a democracy, elected officials can extract short-term benefits out of their position, but have no long-term stake in the well-being of the State. In a hereditary monarchy, on the other hand, the State is effectively the private property of the King. As such, he has an interest in the long-term well-being of the State.

The fact that the state is his private property makes me weary of a monarchy. Sure, monarchs can do great things when their power is unhindered and the King himself is a patriot, but when his son, a complete moron, comes to power you've got a problem. Despite my previous appraisal of the monarchy, my reading of the Romanian Monarchy's history seems to have brought me back to republicanism. Better an authoritarian republic than a powerful monarchy open to the risk of degeneration. Monarchy is preferable over liberal democracy, though.

[starman2003]

The lack of any "checks and balances" is the only real drawback to authoritarianism.

Potentially, but basically that's a great asset. Look at all the ridiculous stalemate and inaction here due to "checks and balances."

Better an authoritarian republic than a powerful monarchy open to the risk of degeneration.

Far better.

Monarchy is preferable over liberal democracy, though.

But what's the use, it's gone for good.

[Eran]

Look at all the ridiculous stalemate and inaction here due to "checks and balances."

You make it sound like government action is generally a good thing.

But what if it isn't? What if it is generally bad, and stalemate and inaction are consequently positive?

[Andropov]

What I meant was there is a lack of accountability inherent in an authoritarian system. The dictator could become insane and there would be no way to get him out of power barring a rebellion.

[Preston Cole]

But what if it isn't? What if it is generally bad, and stalemate and inaction are consequently positive?

In a democracy, this is true. Corrupt governments that stash public money in its own pocket while leaving the rest of the country in a state of recession (like the current Romanian government) needs to be eliminated. But inaction is really just the final countermeasure to a generally idiotic government when the people have no tools or will to fight back; it's as low as you can get.

[Bon Ventri]

What I meant was there is a lack of accountability inherent in an authoritarian system. The dictator could become insane and there would be no way to get him out of power barring a rebellion.

So in the theorising of worst case scenarios, what you mean is that an autocrat could suddenly derail, and incite swift rebellion - as opposed to a democratic system that could gradually rot, and incite a slow and painful death?

[Eran]

It is certainly the case that democracy lulls the public into a false sense of legitimacy. People are fooled into thinking that they "rule themselves", or such silly notions.

[Wolfman]

You make it sound like government action is generally a good thing.

You realize you're talking to Fascists, don't you? Where your go-to answer "The magic of the Free Market will solve all of the worlds problems" their go-to answer is "The magic of 'you-doing-what-the-fuck-you're-told' will solve this countries problems"

[starman2003]

The dictator could become insane and there would be no way to get him out of power barring a rebellion.

He could be assassinated or deposed in a coup. Even the most powerful dictators risk losing power if they screw up.

What if it is generally bad, and stalemate and inaction are consequently positive?

There is urgent need for action on many fronts--economic, environmental etc. Democracy just can't deliver; authoritarianism can.

[Andropov]

Any positive action is a good thing, through the state, the individual, or otherwise.

[Bon Ventri]

This is how I see it.

When autocracy screws up, it can happen very suddenly, but can be reversed just as swiftly. It happens naturally.

When democracy screws up, it can take forever to happen, but when it happens, its set in stone. There is no reversing it for decades, and it won't happen naturally.

I can understand how those who have a very positive image of humankind may believe in democracy, by majority consensus and consultation (of those who have the "best interests" of the nation at heart), is the way ahead. Because I have a very negative view of humankind, in that I believe in the selfishness, greed and corruption of individuals, I'm a strong advocate of the former system - in which they will be disposed of by natural means, even if the fire of cruel tyranny must pass through the forest first. After which, regrowth always occurs.

[Andropov]

There are elements of both in the human psyche, I think. I favor an autocratic and system that improves society to the point where democracy can function effectively, or at least the same totalitarian system by referendum.

[starman2003]

...I believe in the selfishness, greed and corruption of individuals...

Individuals vary tremendously not only in ability but integrity. Therefore, equal perogatives--one man one vote--makes absolutely no sense.

I favor an autocratic and system that improves society to the point where democracy can function effectively..

In order for democracy to function properly, humanity itself would have to be improved i.e. the masses would have to become politically much more intelligent. But that's not practical, even if some day genetic engineering may make it possible. If you make everyone intellectually/politically smart, it would be at the expense of other skills vital to society. It would be far better to just have a meritocratic elite to handle governing, while others are limited to different things.

[Bon Ventri]

@Starman2003, I believe that the idea of Liberalism is to place our shared identity of "humanity" above all other virtues - integrity and political intelligence included as its inferiors. As we are equal in humanity, we should be equal in voting weight (1). That's the basic precept, as I understand it. From their point of view I can see how it makes sense.

Where it ultimately trips up, in my opinion, is the IDEA that the majority will of the state's people = national interest.

That is huge assumption to make.

[starman2003]

..the idea of Liberalism is to place our shared identity of "humanity" above all other virtues - integrity and political intelligence included as its inferiors.

Sounds idiotic, a dangerous luxury.

Where it ultimately trips up, in my opinion, is the IDEA that the majority will of the state's people = national interest.

And in my opinion too. The majority will is more likely the antithesis of the national interest.