The Problems of Democracy

[Conserative Morality]

It was a democracy for like 200 years, and there weren't others.

Rome.

As for what CM said:

In a 2011 survey, 31% of Saudi youth agreed with the statement `traditional values are outdated and ... I am keen to embrace modern values and beliefs`

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_o ... abia#Youth

The full quote gives much more insight.

Insofar as young people have a tendency to "resent authority, reject rules, and seek to exert their independence," youth rebellion is more problematic because the number of "restrictions and conventions against which youth can rebel" in the kingdom is far larger than in most societies.[150] The average age of the king and crown prince is 74,[151] while 50-60% of Saudis are under twenty, creating a significant generation gap between rulers and ruled.[139][140][152]

In a 2011 survey, 31% of Saudi youth agreed with the statement `traditional values are outdated and ... I am keen to embrace modern values and beliefs`—the highest percentage in the ten Arab countries surveyed.[153][154][155] The number who had confidence about the direction of their country dropped from 98% (in 2010) to 62%.[147][156] While in most societies these numbers might seem unremarkable, in Saudi Arabia any rebellion stands out against "the unquestioning acceptance ... of previous generations".[150]

And supporting traditional values /=/ necessarily supporting the Saudi State.

[The East Marches II]

It was a democracy for like 200 years, and there weren't others.

Rome.

>Athens
>on Rome's level

UMN, get the cross

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was a democracy for like 200 years, and there weren't others.

Rome.

As for what CM said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_o ... abia#Youth

The full quote gives much more insight.

Insofar as young people have a tendency to "resent authority, reject rules, and seek to exert their independence," youth rebellion is more problematic because the number of "restrictions and conventions against which youth can rebel" in the kingdom is far larger than in most societies.[150] The average age of the king and crown prince is 74,[151] while 50-60% of Saudis are under twenty, creating a significant generation gap between rulers and ruled.[139][140][152]

In a 2011 survey, 31% of Saudi youth agreed with the statement `traditional values are outdated and ... I am keen to embrace modern values and beliefs`—the highest percentage in the ten Arab countries surveyed.[153][154][155] The number who had confidence about the direction of their country dropped from 98% (in 2010) to 62%.[147][156] While in most societies these numbers might seem unremarkable, in Saudi Arabia any rebellion stands out against "the unquestioning acceptance ... of previous generations".[150]

And supporting traditional values /=/ necessarily supporting the Saudi State.

>the Roman Republic
>democratic
Okay, Tim, lol

It still shows that 62% of Saudi youth support the current direction the country is heading.

[Conserative Morality]

>Athens
>on Rome's level

UMN, get the cross

R-Rome was the superior offering by far

>the Roman Republic
>democratic
Okay, Tim, lol

>> greater percentage of the population represented than Athens
>> Athens is democratic but Rome isn't

get out

It still shows that 62% of Saudi youth support the current direction the country is heading.

That was in 2012. That's a 30% drop in two years. Wanna make any bets about what it is now?

[Tekeristan]

You know what's happened to those who attempted to resist change, have you? We have more than our fair shares of stories and legends on it.
We change according to how our world changes, and the way we view the world changes as well. Fundamentally, I think this is good. We learn and adapt to the new things we learn and being allowed to change allows us to grow.

The world doesn't change on a timescale that we would change with it. It is us who are the drivers of change, not all of it good.

Climate change aside, social changes are just as big. Technology is a major factor behind social change, society before the industrial revolution is completely unlike society before it. New problems, new concerns, and new resources were brought to the table. That changed the world of which we live in, and thus changed our minds too. Few sensible people call to return to the age before the steam engine, after all.

It would be more stable to live in a society that is capable of adapting to societal changes, rather than a system that is built on resisting change. Democracies reflect the total opinion and thoughts of the populace, while autocracy only reflects a very narrow margin and a very specific margin of the population.

If people want change, and enough of them want it, they should be allowed to bring it about in a peaceful manner, rather than requiring revolutions or coups like in the past. Example being France and Russia.

[The East Marches II]

>Athens
>on Rome's level

UMN, get the cross

R-Rome was the superior offering by far

You are free to go Citizen, go on about your day.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>Athens
>on Rome's level

UMN, get the cross

R-Rome was the superior offering by far

>the Roman Republic
>democratic
Okay, Tim, lol

>> greater percentage of the population represented than Athens
>> Athens is democratic but Rome isn't

get out

It still shows that 62% of Saudi youth support the current direction the country is heading.

That was in 2012. That's a 30% drop in two years. Wanna make any bets about what it is now?

Now that you mention it, yeah, Athens wasn't democratic either.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The world doesn't change on a timescale that we would change with it. It is us who are the drivers of change, not all of it good.

Climate change aside, social changes are just as big. Technology is a major factor behind social change, society before the industrial revolution is completely unlike society before it. New problems, new concerns, and new resources were brought to the table. That changed the world of which we live in, and thus changed our minds too. Few sensible people call to return to the age before the steam engine, after all.

It would be more stable to live in a society that is capable of adapting to societal changes, rather than a system that is built on resisting change. Democracies reflect the total opinion and thoughts of the populace, while autocracy only reflects a very narrow margin and a very specific margin of the population.

If people want change, and enough of them want it, they should be allowed to bring it about in a peaceful manner, rather than requiring revolutions or coups like in the past. Example being France and Russia.

Not all societal changes are good though, and should be resisted.

[Conserative Morality]

Not all societal changes are good though, and should be resisted.

Change is never resisted. It is either embraced or adapted to. Mobility kills.

[New Grestin]

Democracy and Democratic institutions suffer from the same problems that any system developed by humans and intended for human use does. Humans are exceptionally good at finding and exploiting loopholes in systems presented to them. This is why no system that has or ever will be developed by man is foolproof, because by sheer virtue of being designed by humans, it is therefore flawed.

Democracy almost invariably slides into Oligarchy or devolves into some other form of government because those that created it rarely take into account it's future. The founding fathers of the United States, for example, would be unable to conceive the immense power of special interest groups, the elite and the military industrial complex. While they had similar organizations and individuals in their own time, they were never so pervasively powerful as they are now.

That isn't to say that designing a Democracy to resist Oligarchy would work, of course. With the constant stock market-esque highs and lows of human civilization, there can be no accounting for potential changes in society like cataclysm or war.

Democracy is not special in this regard, at least from my stance.

[Conserative Morality]

Democracy and Democratic institutions suffer from the same problems that any system developed by humans and intended for human use does. Humans are exceptionally good at finding and exploiting loopholes in systems presented to them. This is why no system that has or ever will be developed by man is foolproof, because by sheer virtue of being designed by humans, it is therefore flawed.

Democracy almost invariably slides into Oligarchy or devolves into some other form of government because those that created it rarely take into account it's future. The founding fathers of the United States, for example, would be unable to conceive the immense power of special interest groups, the elite and the military industrial complex. While they had similar organizations and individuals in their own time, they were never so pervasively powerful as they are now.

That isn't to say that designing a Democracy to resist Oligarchy would work, of course. With the constant stock market-esque highs and lows of human civilization, there can be no accounting for potential changes in society like cataclysm or war.

Democracy is not special in this regard, at least from my stance.

Er, arguably, the founding fathers created their democracy solely for the those interest groups. Universal male suffrage wasn't immediate, if you'll remember.

[Genivaria]

Democracy existed at least as far back as 500 BCE in ancient Athens so you really can't use time as an excuse here.

With an extremely selective ability to become a citizen. Calling that democracy is generous to say the least. Athens gets all the credit while Rome doesn't get its due spot. Daily Reminder: Corinth had it coming

You're confusing democracy with universal suffrage.
The United States didn't have universal suffrage and until both women and African-Americans could also vote.

[Infected Mushroom]

If we can make a workable degree in Business Administration, we can make one for Royal Governance, after compiling everything from the centuries of history, wisdom, experience and data. We'll have to appoint a few experts to launch the degree but its not an unfeasible project; in fact it is very much desirable.

Here's a better idea, why not just do what we already do and have educated administrators in the government.

The current practice seems to be to appoint people into government who really have little/no background in actually overseeing government. Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees; there is simply no degree designated for Ministers and more importantly, for a potential King.

[Genivaria]

Here's a better idea, why not just do what we already do and have educated administrators in the government.

The current practice seems to be to appoint people into government who really have little/no background in actually overseeing government. Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees; there is simply no degree designated for Ministers and more importantly, for a potential King.

Then you don't know what the actual practice is.

Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees

*facepalm* This shit again?

there is simply no degree designated for Ministers

Government, Business, Political Science, Public Administration, International Relations, Economics.
Take your fucking pick.

and more importantly, for a potential King

Too fucking bad, real leaders are made not born.

[Infected Mushroom]

The current practice seems to be to appoint people into government who really have little/no background in actually overseeing government. Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees; there is simply no degree designated for Ministers and more importantly, for a potential King.

Then you don't know what the actual practice is.

Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees
*facepalm* This shit again?

there is simply no degree designated for Ministers

Government, Business, Political Science, Public Administration, International Relations, Economics.
Take your fucking pick.

and more importantly, for a potential King

Too fucking bad, real leaders are made not born.

None of these are actual practical professional degrees though

Also, as someone who has both a degree in political science and law, I can tell you that neither degree has much to do with actual governance (it is entirely possible to get a political science degree just taking almost exclusively Comparative Politics classes and electives for example)

[Genivaria]

Then you don't know what the actual practice is.

Too many random liberal arts majors and people with law degrees
*facepalm* This shit again?

Government, Business, Political Science, Public Administration, International Relations, Economics.
Take your fucking pick.

Too fucking bad, real leaders are made not born.

None of these are actual practical professional degrees though

Also, as someone who has both a degree in political science and law, I can tell you that neither degree has much to do with actual governance (it is entirely possible to get a political science degree just taking almost exclusively Comparative Politics classes and electives for example)

You being dismissive of academia makes no difference.

[Conserative Morality]

None of these are actual practical professional degrees though

I must be imagining the millions of jobs that require those degrees.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Exactly, a good king must always work for his people so that all benefit from their deeds.

How do you prevent a bad king?

If a king is crazy or suffers from various problems that make it impossible for him to govern, he has two options: 1. He abdicates and 2. He will remain as a king, but another member of the royal family (wife, son) will rule as regent until his death.

[Genivaria]

How do you prevent a bad king?

If a king is crazy or suffers from various problems that make it impossible for him to govern, he has two options: 1. He abdicates and 2. He will remain as a king, but another member of the royal family (wife, son) will rule as regent until his death.

And if he says fuck that and goes all Mad King?

[Tekeristan]

None of these are actual practical professional degrees though

I must be imagining the millions of jobs that require those degrees.

nah, only engineering matters.
Now if we can just get that proper infrastructure budget..

[The East Marches II]

None of these are actual practical professional degrees though

I must be imagining the millions of jobs that require those degrees.

Most don't. It just so happens that we've convinced ourselves as a society that a slip of paper matters. Uni degrees are inflated far beyond their real value.

[Conserative Morality]

Most don't. It just so happens that we've convinced ourselves as a society that a slip of paper matters. Uni degrees are inflated far beyond their real value.

The slip of paper is highly valuable to employers who don't want to waste time and resources figuring out if every schmuck that walks in has the required skills. It's a baseline filter.

That's the real value of a degree, more than what is learned in the process of acquiring it.

[The East Marches II]

Most don't. It just so happens that we've convinced ourselves as a society that a slip of paper matters. Uni degrees are inflated far beyond their real value.

The slip of paper is highly valuable to employers who don't want to waste time and resources figuring out if every schmuck that walks in has the required skills. It's a baseline filter.

That's the real value of a degree, more than what is learned in the process of acquiring it.

Employers who don't want to waste time or we who think it necessary for success. I believe it is a culturally generated phenomenon rather than a business one. We bought our own hype so to speak. We've made it as mundane as a High School diplomas
and the people aren't better educated enough to justify it's cost/expense/cultural value.

[NeuPolska]

If a king is crazy or suffers from various problems that make it impossible for him to govern, he has two options: 1. He abdicates and 2. He will remain as a king, but another member of the royal family (wife, son) will rule as regent until his death.

And if he says fuck that and goes all Mad King?

Go look at the policies of every single monarchy in existance now. There are protocols which prevent outright abuse of power like that and if he is truly crazy then he would not be legitimate and therefore holds no power. He can't order executions if no one takes him seriously. It's a ridiculous scenario to begin with, to say the least.

[Genivaria]

And if he says fuck that and goes all Mad King?

Go look at the policies of every single monarchy in existance now. There are protocols which prevent outright abuse of power like that and if he is truly crazy then he would not be legitimate and therefore holds no power. He can't order executions if no one takes him seriously. It's a ridiculous scenario to begin with, to say the least.

You mean the constitutional monarchies that are extremely democratic?
Those?