I think it's even ridiculous that we have to rely on "good" billionaires to somehow beat the "bad" billionaires. How is this any better than wars of succession between rival claims to the monarchy? How is this a "stable" situation? Theoretically it's supposed to be voters deciding on the best candidate.
Bukele had a really powerful insight in that in the end, power will rest in either a monarch or merchants. In our case, we're at the mercy of billionaires and bankers.
IMO, elected monarchy is the best and most stable political system as far as history is concerned. Republics are simply too vulnerable to outside forces because they can easily be coopted by secret societies and the rich. That's why freemasons were busy overthrowing the old monarchies and installing Democratic Republics so that they could rule via money. The rewards for being in control of the Republic are far too great for even the most virtuous to resist being corrupted by.
One could argue that power wasn't dispersed throughout the population as it grew. With the advent of the computer and block chain technology, it should be possible to develop a system that can't be corrupted that does this. Of course we'll have to revisit who is allowed to exercise the right to vote, etc., as it should require "skin in the game" instead of everyone who is breathing over 18. We should vastly increase the number of representatives and senators so that special interest groups have a more difficult time co-opting them. Also ban lobbyists, etc. I'm certain it can be done but someone a lot smarter than myself is going to have to figure it out.
There are always improvements that can be made to the system, but I think the end result is inevitable: democracies and republics inevitably end up being controlled by the very rich. Think Roman Republic and the first Triumvirate. This is nothing new, the American system is a vast improvement on the Roman one and the outcome is the same. It kinda starts to sound like "well that wasn't real communism."
I think it's even ridiculous that we have to rely on "good" billionaires to somehow beat the "bad" billionaires. How is this any better than wars of succession between rival claims to the monarchy? How is this a "stable" situation? Theoretically it's supposed to be voters deciding on the best candidate.
Bukele had a really powerful insight in that in the end, power will rest in either a monarch or merchants. In our case, we're at the mercy of billionaires and bankers.
IMO, elected monarchy is the best and most stable political system as far as history is concerned. Republics are simply too vulnerable to outside forces because they can easily be coopted by secret societies and the rich. That's why freemasons were busy overthrowing the old monarchies and installing Democratic Republics so that they could rule via money. The rewards for being in control of the Republic are far too great for even the most virtuous to resist being corrupted by.
It's a movie?!
You mean like Britain? Keke
no, like Venice or the Holy Roman Empire
Don’t know about Venice but a lot of people became lion food in Rome.
and an unbiased military secures that the elections are honest?
One could argue that power wasn't dispersed throughout the population as it grew. With the advent of the computer and block chain technology, it should be possible to develop a system that can't be corrupted that does this. Of course we'll have to revisit who is allowed to exercise the right to vote, etc., as it should require "skin in the game" instead of everyone who is breathing over 18. We should vastly increase the number of representatives and senators so that special interest groups have a more difficult time co-opting them. Also ban lobbyists, etc. I'm certain it can be done but someone a lot smarter than myself is going to have to figure it out.
There are always improvements that can be made to the system, but I think the end result is inevitable: democracies and republics inevitably end up being controlled by the very rich. Think Roman Republic and the first Triumvirate. This is nothing new, the American system is a vast improvement on the Roman one and the outcome is the same. It kinda starts to sound like "well that wasn't real communism."
"that wasn't real democracy"
"we coulda designed a better constitution"
c'mon