Were we better off being ruled by kings?
I'd like to present one argument for monarchy over democracy. First, I'll start with a principle that is often used to argue for capitalism over socialism: the idea of private property. Then, I'll apply that to government as a whole (i.e. a nation as property) and explain why it might be better than what we have now.
In pure capitalism, every person is able to own private property that cannot be taken away from them unless they voluntarily allow it. They are entitled to 100% of the profits that their property yields. In pure socialism, there is no private property. Instead, everything is publicly owned and all the means of production are managed by appointed caretakers. These caretakers are responsible for the production that comes from this public property.
A big concept that separates these two ideologies is that under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned and can be bought and sold according to the profits that can be obtained by then. Under socialism, caretakers cannot buy or sell the means of production, and therefore assign no value to them. This means that they only care for the production that they can claim responsibility for, usually at the expense of the value of the means of production.
For example, a socialist system would have little regard for undue wear and tear on machinery, while a capitalist system would try to retain the value of the machinery so long as it is economically viable, theoretically leading to more efficient use of said machinery.
Now, let's apply this to government. In a society where leaders are appointed democratically, they have very little incentive to retain the value of the society and to make very long term investments that wouldn't pay off before their own term ends. A monarch who owns the nation as private property, however, would always be incentivized to maximize the value of the nation, opting to make the best investments of resources over those that would pay off within a few short years.
[sep]
There are other arguments that could be made for monarchy over democracy, but I find this to be the most convincing. What do you think of this, people of SW?
In pure capitalism, every person is able to own private property that cannot be taken away from them unless they voluntarily allow it. They are entitled to 100% of the profits that their property yields. In pure socialism, there is no private property. Instead, everything is publicly owned and all the means of production are managed by appointed caretakers. These caretakers are responsible for the production that comes from this public property.
A big concept that separates these two ideologies is that under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned and can be bought and sold according to the profits that can be obtained by then. Under socialism, caretakers cannot buy or sell the means of production, and therefore assign no value to them. This means that they only care for the production that they can claim responsibility for, usually at the expense of the value of the means of production.
For example, a socialist system would have little regard for undue wear and tear on machinery, while a capitalist system would try to retain the value of the machinery so long as it is economically viable, theoretically leading to more efficient use of said machinery.
Now, let's apply this to government. In a society where leaders are appointed democratically, they have very little incentive to retain the value of the society and to make very long term investments that wouldn't pay off before their own term ends. A monarch who owns the nation as private property, however, would always be incentivized to maximize the value of the nation, opting to make the best investments of resources over those that would pay off within a few short years.
[sep]
There are other arguments that could be made for monarchy over democracy, but I find this to be the most convincing. What do you think of this, people of SW?
