Like if you could get the clouds to part and an angel to float down and place a crown on your head and declare you king of somewhere.
Alternately, reskin it as being a CEO and play from their. You get put in place by a group of power players, you gradually swap out those individuals for people in your own family that you can control. Boom, you're done.
>>44802588 Take a look at North Korea's propaganda. Thats how ya do it.
Take power militarily and use propaganda to convince everyone it was a popular revolution.
Then, over a few years, you use propaganda to convince everyone that you were divinely appointed and that you are the perfect ruler.
Like North Korean propaganda, at one point, included that a sparrow announced Kim Jong Il's coming birth and he walked out of his mother fully formed, so greatly shaming all Korean doctors that they left the country.
I believe that also conveniently covered up him having all the doctors executed because they were educated, bar for those that supported him.
>>44802776 Monarchies aren't less corruptible than democracies (or more). They do have two different advantages for efficacy. They have faster reaction time because the CEO has a better OODA loop than a Congress, and can fire bureaucrats, unlike a Congress. They also have better long-term planning, because kings usually last 20 to 30 year terms instead of 4, 8, or 12 year terms and aren't vulnerable to elections.
Kings also have an interest in extending a family legacy, especially if their country qualifies as property. Democracies incentivize a cut-and-run approach to political profiteering that results in a revolving-door for lobbyists.
So taking these two together, maybe it can molded into some kind of reverse revolution? Somehow the notions of democracy that were championed by the founding fathers and the French Revolution arn't all it's cracked up to be?
People being willing to live under the rule of a single individual if they are able to get things done without all the gridlock of elected indivduals who don't really care what the people they are representing actually want? (Or rather because of it nothing important gets done)
>>44802588 Anarchy naturally leads into autocracy invariably. Any widespread disaster that undoes previously established modes of governance leads into autocracy. Revolution can lead into fascism or other forms of autocracy. Cults are inherently autocratic. There are many ways.
>Country is thrown into a state of chaos to do economic and political instability >Politicians are in constant gridlock and seemingly can't or won't move forward on initiatives to get things working again >Wealthy individuals and businesses start to secretly form alliances in anticipation for the eventual government meltdown and quietly hire various PMC and security forces or form and hire their own >After the chaos these entities go out to the public with promises of aid and protection in areas they've staked out for themselves >After 30-50 years autocratic rule is the norm and the term Regis even begins to pop up in again
>>44802588 Country used to be a monarchy but the royal line sorta let democracy happen because it was a really popular idea in exchange for retaining enough resources to keep an eye on shit, a bunch of supposively ceremonial guards and the ability to get really stinking rich over time. Eventually the country falls into disarray because reasons and the government basically goes into the toilet in the being helpful department so the now mostly tourist bait royalty takes over and punts the shitty elected officials to the curb because bigger army diplomacy.
Constitutional Monarchy is the best of both worlds. You get a figurehead that is "above the common man" and they don't get to ruin anything when it turns out they have no clue how to actually run a government.
>>44806268 That's not how you spell "Constitutional Republic with several layers of inter-moderating officials" AKA: What the US would have looked like if the federalists had their way and Hamilton wasn't killed.
>>44806294 Yes, but Canada and Australia are likenesses to that, and all achieved without bloody revolution. Representative republics with strong constitutions and not only are the branches of government all inter-moderating, but the technically highest person in government, the Governor(ness) General is a "representative of the Queen's will" who is in turn a "representative of the people's spirit."
So many checks and balances
The only caveat is an unelected but appointed Senate.
>>44806640 Nah, that's too far in the other direction too. You can be a productive and useful citizen with a stake in the nation's future without owning land.
Really, the following groups should be granted votes. >land owners >students with graduate degrees of any kind >students with an undergraduate degree in a STEM or professional field >workers who have been a member of any trade(s), such as welding carpentry, or construction, for a decade >voluntary veterans who have served for more than 5 years >anyone drafted >the top 50% of the population in income So basically this just serves to exclude the poor who don't better themselves at all, and liberal arts students.
I would think most people are to apathetic or to stupid to really care about matters that don't immediately impact them so elected officals only matter at the local level while you'd have some kind of leadership maybe similar to the way the Empire Works were an Emperor or whatever title you wish to confer comes from a few groups who work towards longer over arching goals that modern day politicians couldn't be bothered with because they're too busy trying to trick their constituents that they actually care what they think about and only follow the money given to them anyways.
>>44806977 This; elections are amazing at the local level, but less so at the upper level.
An interesting way to reconcile the two ideals is to "militarize" the government in a sense, while also standardizing the relation between counties and states, and states and the federal government. After having served as mayor or some formal position for a long enough time (half a decade, perhaps); municipal officials are eligible to be promoted to a position in either the state senate, congress or whatever exists after the standardization. In order to be promoted, a simple majority of the currenly existing state congressmen must approve the newcomer, but this can be overruled in 3 ways; either by a super majority of municipal councilors or mayors, a super majority of federal congressmen, or by the governor of the state himself. In turn, state congressmen can veto the governor's overule, (as well as the federal congressmen), but they cannot veto a federal overule.
This same pattern continue up to federal congressmen, with the relevant parties being shifted up one level.
In order to become a mayor, governor, or president, you must serve for at least a decade on that level's congressional equivalent, before being voted in via the same process as described above.
>>44806036 This is the epitome of all Scott Alexander posts, writes a lot of interesting stuff, weights different perspectives and then finally comes to a retarded conclusion. In this case, man-made A.I-Jesus.
Too much hanging out with Lesswrong is not healthy.
>>44802588 Probably as a result of some sort of neo-fascism with larger than normal reactionary elements. Alternatively a shitty third world nation reinstates an imitation of its pre-colonial monarchs to power as a form of anti-imperialist historically inspired nation building (much more of a stretch today than fifty years ago). Alternatively a European nation reinstates its monarchy to get those sweet tourism $.
>>44802776 Dude. Stop sucking singapores dick. It is successful because of its really small size and geographical position as a global shipping port. The Singapore gov knows this and have sabotaged Johor's ports and also sent spies and instigators to Southern Thailand to prevent a canal from being built across the peninsula. Kuan Yew benefited from British infrastructure and did not buid from scratch. The Singapore gov regularly win 90% of the votes by legalistically stiffling dissent. No one spoke up because life is good. The minute it turns bad is when the grumblings will begin.
Through democratic elections, monarchist party wins the elctions, states that wants to restore/set up the monarchy, makes a referendum, wins, proceeds a elect a king or queen (if the monarchist party had not a claimant to begin with). Has him acclaimed.
>>44802588 An oligarchy, that does tear itself apart, leaving only one survivor with all the assets. the means to rule then get abstracted by time and propaganda to the right to rule, which gets passed down a dynasty.
>>44810240 I was thinking something along the lines of pic related, and I'll do my best to explain it.
Assuming that the youngest you can be to become a councilman is 20, and that each step requires 5 years of service in the current office, you can see that the time required to reach president would either be 15 years (executive route, 3 steps) or 25 years (legislative route, 5 steps), leading to a minimum age of the president being 35 to 45 years which is about what we have now.
In order to advance laterally across the current level (for lack of a better word), your peers must vote you to do so. Examples: Citizens vote other citizens into councilmen. Councilmen vote other councilmen into mayors. State senators vote each other into governors. Federal congressmen vote each other into Federal Senators. etc... This requires a civil (1/2) majority.
However, it is possible to veto this promotion, and this can be done by the offices leading from the one in question. Examples: Mayors veto incoming councilmen. Governors veto incoming state senators. Federal congressmen veto incoming state senators. etc... This requires a (3/5) majority, or simply the singular executive in the case of the president.
It is also possible to overrule this veto, and this can be done by both the office in question, and those leading to it. Examples: Citizens can overrule a veto of a councilman being promoted. State senators can overrule a veto of a state senator being promoted. Governors can overrule a veto of a federal senator being promoted. etc... This requires a (2/3) majority.
Moving vertically (between) levels operates in much the same way as moving laterally.
>>44813546 As for term limits, let us pretend that all offices have a term limit of 5 years. In order to stay in office, an official must be voted to stay in the next lowest legislature. Examples: State senators keep or kick federal congressmen. State senators keep or kick governors. Federal senators keep or kick presidents. Federal congressmen keep or kick federal senators. This requires a civil (1/2) majority, and is subject to the same veto and overrule rules as above, with the focus office being the ones doing the kicking/keeping.
After all officials for this cycle have been kicked/kept, officials who meet the service time requirement may begin preparing their peer-campaigns to go onto which ever office is available. In this case that there are not enough officials who meet the requirements to fill all offices, officials under the required age (but in order of age) may begin to fill these offices.
>>44802755 >Like North Korean propaganda, at one point, included that a sparrow announced Kim Jong Il's coming birth and he walked out of his mother fully formed, so greatly shaming all Korean doctors that they left the country.
Sounds like the average Hellboy antagonist backstory
>>44802914 Neither of the first two things you said are a given in a monarchy. The Queen of Britain can't just fire random bureaucrats (even if she might be legally able to do so- I don't think so but it's irrelevant here) and there's no reason that a monarchy couldn't be bound by an elaborate legislative system that takes twice as long as the notoriously cumbersome American legislative system.
People have this silly idea that an absolute monarch (hardly the only kind, but I know that's what you're talking about here) can do what he wants forever and without limit. It's not true- if he makes people angry enough, they'll replace him or overthrow him.
Or just decide they're not doing it, I guess. If the absolute monarch decides that every second-born child must die tomorrow, he's relying on other people to carry out his wishes- representatives to transmit his message, generals to command troops, soldiers to do the actual killing, and so on down to the dude who's got to dig the mass graves. The chain can break at any number of points here, just like in an republic you care to mention.
>>44815365 Most people with STEM degrees eventually get employ in either state/federal positions, education, or as chartered experts/professionals in private industry. I'd say those count as being professional
>>44802588 >how to run a modern-day monarchy start bank corp put entire life into it own a little bit of everything make yourself indispensable get your family in on it 3 generations later your family owns everything control media so you are able to keep your family out of the limelight provoke wars at your convenience make money off of all sides use mass suggestion to convince world that anyone who says you own it is a nutjob
IMO the reality is more about making a sharp Bell curve instead of a flat one. By forcing leaders to be dependent on popular opinion, democracies cap leader IQ, because effective communications are capped around a 20IQ difference between humans.
This lets democracies avoid problems like inbred retards while ensuring they'll never see genius either. Unfortunately it also enables Idiocracy.
However, that's appealing to the bourgeoisie, because, valuing the market, they can place hope for improved lives in improved material technology instead of social technology.
It works, unless social signalling gets out of hand (as it has presently) and suffocates the incentives for market-based technical improvement.
>>44802588 Demorcracy collapses. There are shortages of every basic necessity, jobs disappear. Then socialist governments are elected and proceed to make things even worse with their incompetent policies.
Ultimately, a new populist movement takes shape. Since both Democracy and Socialism have been discredited in the public eye, a third option is needed. Thus comes the Neo-Royalist movement.
Effectively, the Neo-Royalists are Fascists, but they sell themselves with a pop-cultural message steeped in rose-tinted nostalgia for the "good old days." No longer can governments be slaves to indecision and infighting. An Absolute, undisputed leader is needed. This leader must be perfect in every way. Healthy, disciplined, and very well educated in political theory and economics. Since no such person exists, they must be CREATED.
The new ruling class are genetically enhanced and receive the best education and training imaginable. They are raised from birth to be leaders. The crown does not pass by order of birth, but by merit. The heads of the Great Houses (descendents of modern multi-national Corporations) vote for who gets to be the next King.
>>44817600 That actually sounds possible. Not to mention that in many European countries there are still members of royal houses whose ancestors have been robbed of their thrones. I would propably use those to have a sense of continuation rather than create new nobillity
Thread replies: 74 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 437326
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.