Political Hive: Absolutism

[Masiah]

First thread started by the social group Political Hive. The theme of this thread is Absolutism (A state ruled by only one entity, which includes Monarchy, Imperialism and any kind of dictatorship) What can we criticise? What can we approve? Is it possible to be the solution to all social problems? Let the debate begin.

[I will post my opinions later, this is only the thread starter]

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You should apply for the Medivh's Tower usergroup.

Anyways, that entirely depends on the administrative entity that is in control. If executed flawlessly, yes, absolutism would end basically all problems within a nation. Unfortunately, its very nature leaves it extremely vulnerable to corruption. So if it worked, it would be a good idea, but it's just too open to corruption.

 

[frostwhisper]

Well, a big advantage (in my opinion) of the Absolutist system is the fact that the power is centralized, and corruption (which is a rather great problem, at least in my country) is harder to influence the ones in the ruling positions. In any state where the power is separated, corruption can more easily get under the government's skin, influencing one chunk of rulers at a time, while in absolute states, I believe this to be harder, as all men answer to one group/person only.

Something I don't like much about this system is the following:
1. The people's choice of leadership is usually neglected.
2. If the ruler/group in charge sucks, the whole nation suffers due to its mistakes, as there are no other powers which can help it/remove it/reform it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Well, a big advantage (in my opinion) of the Absolutist system is the fact that the power is centralized, and corruption (which is a rather great problem, at least in my country) is harder to influence the ones in the ruling positions. In any state where the power is separated, corruption can more easily get under the government's skin, influencing one chunk of rulers at a time, while in absolute states, I believe this to be harder, as all men answer to one group/person only.

Your idea seems to be a little backwards to me. If all groups are equally likely to be corrupted, it's better to have multiple groups than only one. I don't see any reason why one powerful group is less susceptible to corruption than one of several individual groups that share power. It's actually easier to corrupt the entire government, because there's only one group to corrupt as opposed to many.

 

[frostwhisper]

I don't know... I believe the opposite. Don't know why, just some intuition feeling tells me that as a whole, a government is harder to break than when separated.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Oh, do you mean when it's like one group of 60 instead of 6 groups of 10? I suppose I can see the way you'd think that, but when corruption does set in to a group, it's better to have the 6 groups of 10 than the one group of 60. Also, in this sort of government, it's more likely to be 1 group of 10 instead of 6 groups of 10.

 

[frostwhisper]

Yeah, but hopefully the 10 in this case are more responsible than the 60, as they've earned their ruling right either through their heritage or by taking over (in both cases they're compelled on keeping the power, and won't be easy pray for outside influence). But I note the word hopefully, as like you mentioned in that first post (which I didn't notice):

that entirely depends on the administrative entity that is in control

 

[Zombie]

Good absolutism works well, but when you put a selfish man into the throne, it's even worse than bad democracy.

 

[Masiah]

Absolutism is one of the most unfair social systems that you can encounter: only one man or one woman can't possible represent what a whole nation wants or even needs. During the time in which one entity controls everything in a community, the most benefited ones are those for whom the leader holds some liking: it has been seen that the friends of a dictator always get presents from him, but they all end up killed by the dictator. Why? Because power corrupts humans, in mind and, in consequence, in body. When a human mind is allowed to take control of other people's lives, it is put under enourmous stress and after some time develops symptoms like paranoia (the most common), insomnia, etc. You can see that most dictators end up mad, believing that even his family is ready to betray and murder him or her.
Anyways, yes I agree that absolutism executed flawlesly would be ideal, but being flawless isn't in human nature for sure.
Personaly, I would only accept absolutism temporaly and like a way to achieve something, but never as a goal to achieve. A goal to achieve is obviously anarchy, but, as we said before, it is too far away... So we must improve by heading that way.

 

[DrazharLn]

I don't think any form of Autocracy is good. If the people don't have a voice then there are always going to be defective groups. What if you want a free health system but the premier spends all the cash on war and wenches. You're not going to be happy.

If you had a benevolent and intelligent AI in control, then it would probably work.

People just aren't reliable enough.

 

[Masiah]

People just aren't reliable enough.

That's what I meant.

 

[DrazharLn]

I think accepting Absolutionism temporarily is a bad idea. Like the communists in Russia deciding to have a transition period between the Tsar's autocracy and true communism. The transition period lasted the entire lifetime of the USSR, communism was never given a chance, a less well thought out system was used instead.

 

[Masiah]

I mean only a true temporaly situation and under extreme cases; I seem to have expressed myself incorrectly: I don't support absolutism at all, it would be the last possibility of solving a problem that can not be solved by any other means.
I know that the Russian communism was a nearly total fail D:

 

[Hakeem]

It's a very bad idea to have one ruler for obvious reasons, but there is one way it should be allowed:
When everyone decides that a specific person should rule.
When that person dies, go back to whatever you had before, but don't think you have to put another person there, because that leads to corruption.

 

[Zombie]

I agree with Hakeem. Also, absolutism can't really work if there was democracy before, and also note that all kings had councilmen and advisors. Not alone one person watches over everything.

 

[DrazharLn]

[posting from Gatwick]

Any other topics to discuss here? I think we all agree that this is a bad idea unless you had some kind of super human who was perfect. We need to have discussions on topics people can argue over tbh.
Otherwise we have a load of posts agreeing with one another except over a few trifling points.

 

[Hakeem]

Well if were done, then I'll point out that the less people you have running things, the easier it is to corrupt.
Likewise, anarchy is the hardest to corrupt.

 

[boomwolf]

You should apply for the Medivh's Tower usergroup.

Whoever is in charge of group membership rarely checks people to list them in, if at all. my application from 06-04-2008 still has no answer, positive or negative.


In any case, absolutism is not the answer. the entire system is failing and corrupted from its very nature.
Not that democracy is perfect. but its a better answer..


And for all anarchists-that "system" cannot work simply because once you have no law, people will start grouping up and make up their own laws, making the entire social structure get going again. (families-tribes-city-states-nations-supernations-etc...)

FYI: supernations is organizations like the European union, or the Arab liege.

 

[Hakeem]

No, I don't mean an uneducated magical reset of world politics, I mean an understood anarchy where people realize that written laws are superfluous, we are the ones enforcing them anyway.

Like one day we all just decide to revoke the power of all the government institutions on Earth. We know we don't need it so we just get rid of it.

I didn't mean for you to jump on anarchy, I'm just saying that the problem of absolutism is as diminished as possible in anarchy.

 

[DrazharLn]

I would disagree that the EU is a supernation. It is an economic grouping of countries that are themselves fiercely independent. You also have to remember that it does not include many European countries (like the one I am writing from now*). I would call the USA a supernation, but perhaps we just have different views on the nomenculture.

I don't think we should discuss Anarchy again, we've already done that a few times.

*I hate swiss keyboards.

 

[annoying]

Well, absolutism would be great for the one in charge, if you look away from the enormous pressure of having to decide everything. And running a country is too much for one person to handle.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Wise and benevolent dictatorship is the best way to go.

Dictatorship, however, do not stay wise and benevolent usually.

 

[Razorbrain]

Absolutism is only good if the ruler is not corrupt and is smarter or knows more than the majority of the nation. Now, in Absolutism, corrption is most likely, since the whole Power = Corruption is porportional(Absolute Power = Absolute Corruption), but Absolutism could be better for some countries instead of democracy, aslong as the leader makes better decisions than the people of the nation would

this is my oppinion

 

[boomwolf]

Absolutism only works in cases like the one the the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy-if the man in charge have no motivation to be in charge anyway. and even better if he don't believe that what he rules over is even real.

 

[DrazharLn]

The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork [Havelock Vetinari] is an example of a good dictator, IMHO.

 

[Captain Griffen]

The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork [Havelock Vetinari] is an example of a good dictator, IMHO.

And those before him perfect examples of why it doesn't work in the long run.

 

[Hakeem]

Dictatorship, however, do not stay wise and benevolent usually.

That's why dictatorship is a commodity. Just because you've had one really awesome person running the world, does not mean you should elect another when he's gone.

 

[DrazharLn]

I think we're all pretty much agreed on this one.

Could someone please close this?