Democracies can only work if the people are virtuous. This observation can be found in the works of many diverse workers. Montesquieu cliamed that a monarchy runs on the monarch's desire for glory while a republic runs on the virtue of its people. We even see this basic assumption from an audience as diverce as revolutionairies as Franklin, Rousseau and Robespierre to anti-democrats like Voltaire and Burke. What they disagree on is not whether virtue is required, but whether the masses can be virtuous enough.
On the other hand, the problem with a monarchy is obvious: there is no guarantee that the monarch will be good, competent or logical. An evil monarch, an incompetent monarch or a monarch that rules entirely by his own whims can singlehandedly ruin a nation. The severely inbred Charles II for example drove Spain from the height of its power to being a bargaining chip used by the other powers of Europe.
So how do we solve these problems? How do we either ensure the virtue of the masses (or at least their devotion to the volonté générale over the volonté de tous) and/or how do we ensure a steady line of competent monarchs (or at least manage to somehow maximize the power of the competent while at the exact same time with the exact same system minimizing the power of the incompetent)?
Tie the weight of a person's vote to their intelligence and/or stake in the success of the society?
E.g. a young adult has a bigger stake than someone on their deathbed
Aristocratic Republic with elitist schools for budding statesmen. Imagine statesmen drilled like Prussian officers. The Republic elects leaders to serve terms of 4 years.
There are 'nationals' (non-citizens born in the country), and citizens. Only a small % of the population become citizens. Citizenship is not guaranteed by birth, it is a voluntary position a boy takes at ages 14-15. He will be drilled through elite education (if he is fit for it). At 21 he will be either accepted as a citizen or rejected. Every year there is a national wide celebration/holiday called "citizen's day", citizens become a respected and responsible member of society.
Citizens are allowed to 'vote' when they are also landowners, they will vote for regional representatives which will then form a people's assembly that is advisory to the main aristocratic assembly. Similar to the HoL and HoC in some ways.
>inb4 *tips Plato*
>inb4 back2/pol/
>>1374879
>E.g. a young adult has a bigger stake than someone on their deathbed
This is where your proposal collapses. How would someone on his deathbed not have a stake in the success of a society? Would an old man not want to leave behind a proper environment for his children grandchildren and greatgrandchildren? Why would his opinion hold less value than that of a snotnosed brat who thinks he knows everything despite his lack of experience in both life and politics?
The problem with meritocracies is that you have to ask by what standards merit is judged, and who judges this merit.
>>1374910
>by what standards merit is judged, and who judges this merit.
my feels. If you disagree with me, I'll kill you.
>>1374910
A person in their deathbed will not have to endure the consequences of their vote for very long. A young person will have to endure them for a lifetime.
You argue that the old are wise. I argue that they are just as likely to be senile, clouded by nostalgia, or set in their ways and afraid of change.
>>1374864
Monarchy is the superior form of Govt, when compared to Democracies.
In a democracy you are wholly self reliant on the actions and competence of hundreds of individuals, each with no inherent incentive to maintain their civic duty to the highest point. A statesman who works for only 4 years in a term, unless reelected will spend half that time trying to get maintain his office. You simply run into issues of nepotism and shallow behavior.
As opposed to Monarchy with its Royal Family, you have a Monarch whose sole existence and power is tied to the life of his nation. There is a particular reason Empires and Kingdoms reached such lofty heights in the Colonial and Imperial age. For every horror story concerning an inbred or tyrant, you'll have 10 Monarchs dedicated to maintaining the status quo and or improving the nation.
The simplicity of it is in the fact that when Monarchy lasts a few generations, it creates a sense of tradition, duty, and competency in which the next Monarch can rely upon. This is not even including the fact that Monarchy has at times defined entire cultures.
Monarchist burger bro over here. Happy to have discussion on this.
>>1374918
And the young are likely to be entitled, uppity, airheaded fucks. Assigning different values to citizens' votes is an idea void of all foresight anyway - it'll become what racial and identity politics are today: a way to win support of different demographics without any actual constructive policymaking.
