It’s arguable that a truly benevolent despot is the most effective leader for the people. The
problem is you rarely get two of those in a row. So any good works accomplished by one good king is
likely to be destroyed by the next three ignorant, weak, and self indulgent people that will come to
be king. By the time you get another good one they spend half their reign fixing the blunders and
cruelties of the previous rulers.
No it’s better to have a system that may restrict the power of the good rulers but also restricts
the power of the bad ones.
Well said. If one has the benefit of a righteous, wise and benevolent monarch then the kingdom will flourish. I might add that it is easier to topple a ruthless, callous, evil king than an evil, wicked and ignorant entrenched leadership in a republic or democracy.
The world would only be better from the perspective of those kings and their royal families.
Everyone else potentially gets the shaft. History has had kings who put innocent people to death,
took all they owned, stole men's wives, etc. It's no coincidence that there are only a handful of
nations in the world which still have kings and in some of them the king is pretty much left with
symbolic power instead of real power.
Would I like to be king? It depends. Could I really rule all my subjects fairly and take care of
their needs? If I could pull it off then sure, but most likely the task would be far bigger than
the average guy realizes and in that case if I'm faced with starving or pissed of peasants who think
I'm an idiot I'd rather surrender the crown to a democracy.
01 Mar 2009 12:31
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
