(no title)
rajin444 | 2 years ago
Nowadays we’ve all embraced democracy (oligarchy run by demagogues) and it’s a lot harder to hold anyone accountable. Everyone knows the British monarch is “powerless”, so they quibble amongst one another over whos political party is to blame.
fullshark|2 years ago
rajin444|2 years ago
I think the non representative democracy the US initially was worked well (as history can attest to). Fully representative leaves you with demagogues (as the current day can attest to).
> history
There have been plenty of good kings who saw it their duty to see to their people. This is more or less the default for how humans operate (families, tribes, businesses, etc.).
> present day monarchies
There are not any left in western society that I'm aware of, so there's a bit of a sampling bias.
version_five|2 years ago
But I am curious about how the accountability structure of a feudal system rolling up to a monarch compares to modern democracy. To some extent isn't each level still accountable to the levels below it - a peasant uprising will be the downfall of a noble, and an aristocrat uprising will be the downfall of a king. It's not immediately clear either that this would be worse than whatever system we live under, which in most places has no accountability and where democracy (voting) is mostly a theatrical exercise that changes nothing.
ChatGTP|2 years ago
boomboomsubban|2 years ago
This happened to roughly one British monarch, Lady Jane Grey and Mary Queen of Scots make it "roughly." Do you think there was only one monarch who failed to enrich the British populace?