Interesting ideas. I admit, I haven't overcome my instinctive aversion (as an American) to the idea of a monarchy being legitimate, so it’s hard to give the possibility a fair hearing. I do look at the British monarchs today, and though I know they no longer govern, they support all the wrong causes and are in deep all the wrong people. A monarchy is only as good as the monarch, which is a real roll of the dice. I'm skeptical it would be an improvement. Your idea of an aristocracy would be better, but how would the "best" among us be selected? And how would the integrity of that process be safeguarded, so it doesn't devolve into mere credentialism, which the pathocrats can just game (like they've gamed the current credentialing systems)?
I don't have the answers, but given how corruptible most people are by power, whatever system involves breaking up concentrations of power as much as possible is probably best.
But you raise some interesting questions, which will probably only become more relevant because the corruption and incompetence and decay in the current system seem to be terminal at this point.
Good points and valid concerns, which I mostly agree with, which is why even after my discussion of the benefits of monarchy, I couldn't truly *recommend* as a better alternative... which is why I'd rather go with Aristocracy. But of course, you're right, how do you select the best in a way that truly selects for those suited to rule and isn't easily gameable? I left my discussion of Aristocracy kind of vague on purpose, it's an interesting thought experiment but I have yet to come to any solid answers. I think you're right, something that's decentralized would probably be best.
Great essay! I especially like the notion that the spirit of aristocracy can be applied to any structure of government. No reason we can't work to promote leadership at all levels based on virtue and excellence. I won't deny that there are incentives working against that in our current system, but that doesn't mean success is impossible.
The worst-case monarchy (government by an incompetent, malicious, drug-addicted retard) is mild compared to the worst-case democracy (government by a thousand of such quality). That alone is not a persuasive argument... but the excess of monarchy should be contrasted against the excess of democracy, such as The Thirty of Athens... and the bloodthirsty Athenian government before them, which featured in the Melian dialogues of Thucydides, when their philosophy is remembered as, "The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must.".
I also loved the book by George R. R. Martin, but am sad he has waited so long to publish Winds of Winter.
Worth noting that GRRM is the woke liberal's liberal, meaning a modernist to the core - with a completely debased view of human nature that does not admit any real gradations of moral quality. Thus the characters of GoT are the openly morally repugnant, those who cloak themselves in hypocrisy, and the foolishly naive. In such a worldview, of course there can be no such thing as functional aristocracy or nobility: the competent are too evil, and the good too incompetent. There are no people who are both good and excellent, which is the raw material from which a true aristocracy must be formed.
On the 'absolute power' question, I think you answered that yourself. Monarchs tend to be constrained by custom and tradition, meaning their power is very far from absolute. As Charles Haywood might put it, they have unlimited means towards limited ends: the scope of their activity is strictly defined, but within this scope they are sovereigns with absolute freedom of action. Democracies, by contrast, tend not to be limited by custom, and so both the ends and the means of the state expand without end. As a result we are micromanaged by an army of busybodies bent upon the relentless 'improvement' of society 'for our own good'. Yet at the same time, despite the vast resources commandeered by this bureaucratic army, the limitless mission creep diffuses those resources across a myriad of goals, many of which are self-contradictory, meaning that the state becomes relatively ineffectual: both tyrannical and useless.
Definitely spoke volumes when GRRM killed off Ned Stark in the first book/season-- although, of the character qualities you list, he'd fit right into the "foolishly naive," so it makes sense logically. I've been thinking lately about the postmodern themes the novel weaves in. First and foremost, the relative lack of the usual good/evil dynamic, with much more of an emphasis on power. Also, GoT is set right after a great dynasty has been dethroned, taking with it dragons, the last vestige of magic in the world. Feels like a subtle jab at the transcendant-- especially when Tywin says at one point in the show, "Dragons don't win wars. Armies win wars." And, of course, the supremely cynical conception of human nature that you describe.
As to your second part, it immediately brought to mind my favorite CS Lewis quote-- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Interesting point about the dragons and disenchantment. Of course, in that case the gradual reintroduction of magic into the world suggests a reenchantment.
Interesting ideas. I admit, I haven't overcome my instinctive aversion (as an American) to the idea of a monarchy being legitimate, so it’s hard to give the possibility a fair hearing. I do look at the British monarchs today, and though I know they no longer govern, they support all the wrong causes and are in deep all the wrong people. A monarchy is only as good as the monarch, which is a real roll of the dice. I'm skeptical it would be an improvement. Your idea of an aristocracy would be better, but how would the "best" among us be selected? And how would the integrity of that process be safeguarded, so it doesn't devolve into mere credentialism, which the pathocrats can just game (like they've gamed the current credentialing systems)?
I don't have the answers, but given how corruptible most people are by power, whatever system involves breaking up concentrations of power as much as possible is probably best.
But you raise some interesting questions, which will probably only become more relevant because the corruption and incompetence and decay in the current system seem to be terminal at this point.
Good points and valid concerns, which I mostly agree with, which is why even after my discussion of the benefits of monarchy, I couldn't truly *recommend* as a better alternative... which is why I'd rather go with Aristocracy. But of course, you're right, how do you select the best in a way that truly selects for those suited to rule and isn't easily gameable? I left my discussion of Aristocracy kind of vague on purpose, it's an interesting thought experiment but I have yet to come to any solid answers. I think you're right, something that's decentralized would probably be best.
Hail Caesar!
Great essay! I especially like the notion that the spirit of aristocracy can be applied to any structure of government. No reason we can't work to promote leadership at all levels based on virtue and excellence. I won't deny that there are incentives working against that in our current system, but that doesn't mean success is impossible.
Thank you for the kind words! You're absolutely right. As you yourself have pointed out, it's rational to be optimistic after all!
The worst-case monarchy (government by an incompetent, malicious, drug-addicted retard) is mild compared to the worst-case democracy (government by a thousand of such quality). That alone is not a persuasive argument... but the excess of monarchy should be contrasted against the excess of democracy, such as The Thirty of Athens... and the bloodthirsty Athenian government before them, which featured in the Melian dialogues of Thucydides, when their philosophy is remembered as, "The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must.".
I also loved the book by George R. R. Martin, but am sad he has waited so long to publish Winds of Winter.
Worth noting that GRRM is the woke liberal's liberal, meaning a modernist to the core - with a completely debased view of human nature that does not admit any real gradations of moral quality. Thus the characters of GoT are the openly morally repugnant, those who cloak themselves in hypocrisy, and the foolishly naive. In such a worldview, of course there can be no such thing as functional aristocracy or nobility: the competent are too evil, and the good too incompetent. There are no people who are both good and excellent, which is the raw material from which a true aristocracy must be formed.
On the 'absolute power' question, I think you answered that yourself. Monarchs tend to be constrained by custom and tradition, meaning their power is very far from absolute. As Charles Haywood might put it, they have unlimited means towards limited ends: the scope of their activity is strictly defined, but within this scope they are sovereigns with absolute freedom of action. Democracies, by contrast, tend not to be limited by custom, and so both the ends and the means of the state expand without end. As a result we are micromanaged by an army of busybodies bent upon the relentless 'improvement' of society 'for our own good'. Yet at the same time, despite the vast resources commandeered by this bureaucratic army, the limitless mission creep diffuses those resources across a myriad of goals, many of which are self-contradictory, meaning that the state becomes relatively ineffectual: both tyrannical and useless.
Definitely spoke volumes when GRRM killed off Ned Stark in the first book/season-- although, of the character qualities you list, he'd fit right into the "foolishly naive," so it makes sense logically. I've been thinking lately about the postmodern themes the novel weaves in. First and foremost, the relative lack of the usual good/evil dynamic, with much more of an emphasis on power. Also, GoT is set right after a great dynasty has been dethroned, taking with it dragons, the last vestige of magic in the world. Feels like a subtle jab at the transcendant-- especially when Tywin says at one point in the show, "Dragons don't win wars. Armies win wars." And, of course, the supremely cynical conception of human nature that you describe.
As to your second part, it immediately brought to mind my favorite CS Lewis quote-- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Interesting point about the dragons and disenchantment. Of course, in that case the gradual reintroduction of magic into the world suggests a reenchantment.
Great stuff, but what's this "we" shit?
Let me ponder this one a little longer...
ME