How would you justify the creation of a monarchy in a modern day setting? Better yet, how would you go about getting people on board with recognizing your right to rule?
>>44802588
Demonstrable divine right to rule.
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.
Moldbug, that's how.
A monarch is a CEO elected by a board of directors of a nation [aka a geographically focused corporation], who attain their roles based on their economic value and policy-making influence.
Legitimacy comes via the Singapore model. The meme goes "you choose you hotel based on how nice it is, the hotel chooses their management based on what works; no voting involved."
Most countries have a Schelling point for their rulers - bloodlines or divine right, last argument of kings, freedom, order, etc...Singapore chose the principle of instrumental reason.
It worked well and elevated them to a successful lifestyle while Malaysia lags hard. Because it's successful, people recognized Lee Kuan Yew's right to rule.
If you want to get scifi, you can probably work in encrypted public ledgers and such to amplify the argument.
>>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.
>>44802776
>>44802914
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
>How would you justify the creation of a monarchy in a modern day setting?
People finally get over this "democracy is good" meme.
>>44802588
Institute a limited form of Meritocracy, eventually a ruling elite of specialists will emerge.
>>44802776
>Moldbug
I want this memester to leave
>>44805913
>I want this memester to leave
Moldbug is anything but a meme. /Pol/acks hate him because in their mind, he is the mastermind of a Jewish conspiracy meant to quell the fascist revolution.
>>44805739
>tfw no hierarchical imperial republic
>>44805993
>Moldbug is anything but a meme.
I've read NrX literature, and I agree with it on many points, but Moldbug is still just an overly verbose prosesmith.
I really liked reading this article, though.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
>>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.
>>44802776
I'd love to live in Singapore to be honest, the only thing that bugs me about it is the major lack of internet freedoms and privacy.
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.
See: Canada, Australia, the UK.
>>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.
>>44806370
>and all achieved without bloody revolution
Hey now, that rebellion allowed us a head start on manifest destiny. Besides, the King was a real jackass and needed to be knocked down a notch.
>>44802588
Stroke of the state, easy enough. And after a successful dictatorship, your child takes over.
>>44806036
Moldbug's good deed is popularizing Carlyle and other earlier writers. Most of his own political ideas are kinda stupid. The cryptographically locked weapons for instance.
His reading recommendations are great thou.
>>44802588
Monarchy's pretty easy. I mean, we've got plenty of dictators and autocrats running around. All you've got to do from there is have them hand down power to their descendants.
Divine right to rule is something else, but if there's a strong religious sentiment behind the government/country (like the middle east or something), you can easily build on that.
>>44805997
If you don't own land you shouldn't be able to vote
no chips in the pot, no say in the game
Be a God-Emperor like Trump
>>44802588
Religious reasons. Divine right to rule.
i honestly think we need long term leadership to tackle long term problems such as environmental change, nuclear proliferation, economic crisis
it kind of sounds like fascism to say we need 20+ year elected officials or something, but maybe its not
>>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.
>>44806750
>20 years of Obongo
Only if we get to vote to kick them or keep them every 5 years.
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.
A monarchy with elected officials at a local level is literally my ideal form of government.
>>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 $.
>>44802588
The easy way is to give away a fuckton of money. People are willing to accecpt shitty, retarded monarchies when there's money getting tossed around.
That's the Saudi way.
>>44802672
I liked the first one. Someone needs to give modern settings a bit of old testament umph.
>>44806151
Having lived there? Eh, I'm happier back in Australia. It's a bit too heavy handed with security and cracking down on people for my liking.
It's a Fine city but I don't think I'd want to raise kids there.
>>44807094
The issue with that is that you'd end up with people being soon too old to really hold office with all those stages.
I mean:
City Council
Mayor
State Lower House
State Upper House
Federal Lower House
State Upper House
Party Leader
Leader of Country.
>>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.
>>44802588
Your question seems to suggest that a monarchy in modern days would be something strange and need justification.
Have you ever heard of the UK?
>>44802588
>How would you justify the creation of a monarchy in a modern day setting?
However you want, because there's no actual definition of monarchy?
If you mean hereditary autocracy, then those get created all the time.
>>44802588
>>44802588
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.
>>44810392
The UK's monarchy was established long before the modern day. They are basically only kept around as a novelty. I believe OP is asking what would cause one to form now.
>>44810392
have you ever read the post? CREATION.
>>44810240
How old is to old? Maybe strip or merge a few postings and treat it the way one would try to work their way towards being a Pope or something.
>>44802588
Probably it is easiest to base the monarchy on a member of an existing royal family. I think that was Franco did in Spain.
>>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.
>>44813546
>>44813568
I'd say make the starting age a bit higher. Personally I think if you're going for a political appointment you should be especially trained for it so going to school to become a politician
>>44813995
maybe 25 years to become a councilman, and you require an undergraduate degree in a related professional field? (Statistics, political science, economics, etc)
>>44814091
That works I guess. At the minimum if you're going to elected to a government position the very least you need to know how the goddamn government works.
I mean if people like Sarah Palin can become governer and Ben Carson has people backing him for the potential role of president it speaks volumes in my opinion.
>>44810380
So it's like a monarchy then?
>>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
>>44806779
You could really cut out STEM because they'd still be caught up under professional fields, and it would also exclude people from accusing you of having a pro-STEM anti-Liberal Arts bias.
Not that such arguments have merit, its just that the less opportunity for controversy such a measure presents the more believable its adoption would be.
>>44815324
Are STEM degrees considered professional?
I thought professional included accounting, economics, business, management, law, medicine, and so forth.
>>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.
>>44806779
>poor who don't better themselves at all, and liberal arts students.
That's fine, those people never vote of thier own volition anyway
>>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
ask Barack, he's got it figured out.
>>44815498
>I made a funny
>>44815448
King Obongo and Le Free College Man show otherwise.
>>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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
>>44802914
In my opinion the point of having a democracy isn't to necessarily get good leadership, but it's the ability to remove bad leadership without going through a bloody revolution.
>>44816981
Oy vey, the goyim know!
Shut it down!
>>44816989
Is having mediocre leadership worth it, though?
>without a bloody revolution
From listening to the NRA and the bundyfags, you'd think that won't work out as well as you hope.
>>44816989
That's the meme.
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.
>>44817122
Well do you know any system that can guarantee good leadership? If not I'd settle for mediocre with the ability to remove the bad ones.
>>44806779
>So basically this just serves to exclude the poor who don't better themselves at all, and liberal arts students.
That's redundant if you're class and race blind.
>>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 pretty good desu senpai.
>How would you justify the creation of a monarchy in a modern day setting?
Because it's 2016
>>44802588
Genetic superiority. Look at the Harway dynasty in fate/extra.
>>44817272
>Well do you know any system that can guarantee good leadership?
Institutionalized meritocracy.
>>44817307
kek.
>>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
