[ExI] communism/authoritarianism

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:51 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> At this point, I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to the idea of a strong constitutional hereditary monarch, with a behavioral norm of decisively and publicly crushing ursurpers.
>
> In a dysfunctional, divided democracy like the US appears to be currently enjoying, we have a permanent ongoing cold civil war [with occasional flashes of heat] as both major tribes unceasingly maneuver in the plausible hope of attaining power for a few years at a time, until the wheel turns again. This is /far/ more damaging to the lives of normal people than one side simply decisively owning the government would be.
>
> I don't even really care if a future American king would be a member of my political tribe at this point. A decent king can rule reasonably justly over badly divided factions [see the Ottoman Empire for one good example, not to mention the Romans], as long as the factions are effectively and permanently disabused of the hope of eventually crushing their tribal enemies. A hereditary king of a particular tribe is incentivized to refrain from crushing the other tribes under his rule, in a way that a president or senate majority leader is not.
I'm not sure the Roman or Ottoman empires are good examples of what
you want. For instance, Rome had many many bad emperors -- even
allowing that an autocrat is already a bad idea. It even had
disastrous internal wars during the empire, including one period where
the empire simply broke up into three parts for about a dozen years.

The Ottoman empire relied on expansion and started to stagnate once it
stopped expanding. Yeah, it was a long decline, but I don't think it's
the kind of polity anyone here would want to live under. (Ditto for
the Roman Empire.)

A problem with all monarchical systems is, of course, succession. You
might get a somewhat good ruler, by your lights, but that doesn't mean
the successor won't be as good. And Anton's citing Popper earlier
applies: your setup relies on a good and competent person being at the
top, but it's nearly impossible to ensure a bad person (or faction)
won't be on top.

I also think, despite being no fan of the current US system, the
crisis is overstated. Yeah, presidential power has grown enormously
over both the long term and in the last two decades. And factionalism
seems extreme now. But looking at history, is it really like 1968 or
the 1930s? It seems like today the differences are overstated.

And, if anything, I think the solution lies in the other direction:
diminishing if not abolishing the power of the state. I know that's a
tough sell, and I don't pretend to be the kind of person who can
persuade others.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/