>>12021Well here I play a role. In the real world, in truth, much of a system's efficiency has mostly to do with the idiosyncrasies of that time and place, with special attention given to the level of technology and the size of the population ruled. The smaller the size of the group, to a point (after which the trend appears to reverse as far as top-down politics are concerned), the more efficient leadership is, mostly because group cohesion means that leadership is sometimes not even needed, decisions can be spontaneously recognized as being good. This means, paradoxically, that governments can
look quite effective when in fact they do nothing at all, and the reverse is also true, since they can look like they're not doing jack squat when in fact the country is being governed quite well. Lao Tzu was very big on this idea and advocated for small governments for this very reason, though he was addressing theoretical monarchs of small governments anyways.
The issue, of course, is that having a small nation is apt to get you bullied around by larger nations, and that's no less true today than it was way back when, except now large countries tend to run roughshod over small nations' policies through strongarming in coalitions instead of through military action, but the results can be quite similar. A country can't really afford to let itself be utterly defenseless, and the worst part isn't even exterior threats, but interior elements, often themselves quite small, which agree strongly enough to want to force their own government's hand. I see a lot of merit, therefore, in the idea of a central government with enough power to secure absolute rights for its people, a solid and unchanging defender of the key laws upon which society is built and flourishes, very difficult to change, absolutely impossible to bribe or buy off or double-cross or collude with, impervious to conspiracy and utterly indifferent to whatever new form of pseudo-moralistic whining has come along, from either end of the spectrum. Such a solid law is difficult to put in place, to put it very mildly. That's part of the reason I'm so keen on SPQR teaming up with ACP; the notion of an AI with the proper programming is a very appealing one; it would be a kind of living law. Of course I see the dangers in giving it too much power, there must be a means around it, there must
always be a way out just in case, but to set it up well with the right minds behind it would very probably be a boon to society, and in any case, if it isn't made, any society under it would be susceptible to societies and memetic influences which would ensure that society's severe loss.
I understand that I must place myself somewhere along the spectrum, but I'm still not sure where that is, precisely because it is so context dependent and because I reserve the right to recognize that in a few years' time, the terminologies I use now to describe my ideas might be totally flipped. Sure, a monarchy ruled by an undying, well-run robotic AI can sound actually quite nice from a certain angle, but the minute that AI goes from Iain M. Banks-style to the Paranoia RPG-style AI, people are going to ditch their Ray Kurzweil libraries in favor of the Unabomber Manifesto in a heartbeat, and I couldn't blame them. Politics must adapt to circumstance.
But as a general rule, yes, for the time being I am much in favor of a monarchy as a staunch but relatively stable solution to the issues of threatened human rights and elements of culture which actively threaten them under the guise of protecting minorities. Speaking the Unabomber, even though his terminology was garbage and his ideal society was literally anti-intelligence trash, he had some good points to make about that. Above all, I aim for a stable and prosperous state which can repel external threats, listen to valid criticism, and thwart any real attempt to manipulate it from small, charismatic forces. Utopian, but hey, if you don't strive for something better, what
will you strive for?