Elections in various countries

[Travis B.]

I’m legitimately becoming a monarchist. Trump ruined the appeal of democracy for me and people at large are stupid.

Democracy might not be a good form of government, but the only alternative is dictatorship, which is infinitely worse.

[Linguoboy]

I’m legitimately becoming a monarchist. Trump ruined the appeal of democracy for me and people at large are stupid.

I'm curious what historical or current monarchy you would point to as the kind of success story you'd like to see us emulate.

[Man in Space]

Axum. They lasted for quite a while.

On the other side of the coin, what current or historical democracy would you point to as a success story to emulate?

(Now aren’t you all glad I don’t vote?)

[Linguoboy]

On the other side of the coin, what current or historical democracy would you point to as a success story to emulate?

Quite a few. The Nordic social democracies are high on the list, as are Canada and Australia. (None of them are without their problems, but if you can explain how having a monarchical system of government would solve them without undermining any of their other successes or causing worse problems, I'm all ears.)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia are all technically monarchies.

[rotting bones]

I’m legitimately becoming a monarchist.

https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf

Trump ruined the appeal of democracy for me and people at large are stupid.

Trump was chosen by the electoral college, not the people. As I conceive it, the purpose of politics is to force evil smart people to keep stupidity alive. Whenever I make any political statement, stupidity is always the thing I'm trying to save. The only alternatives to stupidity are genocide and dressed up genocide.

Axum. They lasted for quite a while.

Why on earth would I want to live in Axum? Like every other actually existing society, they would have forced me to worship a fake deity while slaving away to enrich an elite that the laws didn't apply to in practice. Axum didn't even accomplish anything to promote the long-term survival of the species. The only thing they had going for them is distance from most centers of civilization, thus deterring invasions. Personally, I don't see the survival of Axum as a success story for the people who lived there.

On the other side of the coin, what current or historical democracy would you point to as a success story to emulate?

There has never been a country that has upheld the superior ideology of Mesquitan Cockshottism with Bourgeois Characteristics, but I would cite Trump's loss in the popular vote as a partial vindication of democracy.

If you were a leftist, Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies might have helped manage depressive moods. For you, maybe Calasso will perform a similar function? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i66n9Cizf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwbRa8HwlMo (For the record, I basically share none of these opinions.)

[Linguoboy]

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia are all technically monarchies.

Of course, but if he's explicitly contrasting "monarchy" with "democracy", he obviously isn't referring to constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a largely or completely symbolic role and actual power is exercised by the people through a democratically-elected parliament. (Or maybe he is? But I kind of find it hard to believe that someone on this board--even someone who doesn't participate in electoral politics--has that poor an idea of how political systems work.)

[Ares Land]

I think it's alright not to vote sometimes. When both options feel equally unappealing to you -- and I've certainly felt that way at times -- why vote?
(Though personally I think if I was an American I'd vote for the Democrats even if the local candidate happened to be an actual donkey. I think Trump and the MAGA crowd need an humiliating defeat so that everyone, and especially the Republicans can move on and offer actual, reasonable candidates. But I'm not an American and it's not really my fight. And again, it's still all right not to vote.)

On the other side of the coin, what current or historical democracy would you point to as a success story to emulate?

America had its moments.

Besides that... Most EU countries. I like the German system a lot, myself.
I'd include France too, really. I do complain a lot about it but a lot of the appeal is that, as the old joke goes, I can complain.

As for monarchy, I think constitutional monarchy has its good points. I like the Taoist idea of the monarch just being there, looking grand, and never doing anything at all.

Absolute monarchy worked with pre-modern states which were small and powerless by our standards, and bound by endless legal precedent and privilege. Louis XIV, by far the most powerful king in Europe in his day had to rule from Versailles because he couldn't safely reside in his own capital.
Absolute monarchy with modern technology and a modern state apparatus though? at best you get the Sauds.

[Man in Space]

But I kind of find it hard to believe that someone on this board--even someone who doesn't participate in electoral politics--has that poor an idea of how political systems work.

You give me too much credit. (And incidentally, what you mention is one of the reasons I choose not to vote. Not the only one, nor even the most paramount one, but one nonetheless.)

[Travis B.]

I think it's alright not to vote sometimes. When both options feel equally unappealing to you -- and I've certainly felt that way at times -- why vote?
(Though personally I think if I was an American I'd vote for the Democrats even if the local candidate happened to be an actual donkey. I think Trump and the MAGA crowd need an humiliating defeat so that everyone, and especially the Republicans can move on and offer actual, reasonable candidates. But I'm not an American and it's not really my fight. And again, it's still all right not to vote.)

To me, not voting is an implicit vote for the greater evil, so one, if one can vote, has an obligation to vote for the lesser evil, no matter how much nose-holding that may entail. (Do I need to state what the greater evil is, and I don't mean Cthulhu?)

People who vote based upon general annoyance at the status quo are basically stupid at best, BTW, because they'll vote for the greater evil just because they're not entirely satisfied with the lesser evil, as we will likely see in this upcoming election. There is no justification for voting for the greater evil, ever.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia are all technically monarchies.

Of course, but if he's explicitly contrasting "monarchy" with "democracy", he obviously isn't referring to constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a largely or completely symbolic role and actual power is exercised by the people through a democratically-elected parliament. (Or maybe he is? But I kind of find it hard to believe that someone on this board--even someone who doesn't participate in electoral politics--has that poor an idea of how political systems work.)

Yes, I know, I simply thought the contrast was rather absurd, as many relatively left-leaning democracies retain largely symbolic monarchies, and I tend to associate the term "monarchism" with support for traditional institutions rather than despotism.

[Travis B.]

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia are all technically monarchies.

Of course, but if he's explicitly contrasting "monarchy" with "democracy", he obviously isn't referring to constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a largely or completely symbolic role and actual power is exercised by the people through a democratically-elected parliament. (Or maybe he is? But I kind of find it hard to believe that someone on this board--even someone who doesn't participate in electoral politics--has that poor an idea of how political systems work.)

Yes, I know, I simply thought the contrast was rather absurd, as many relatively left-leaning democracies retain largely symbolic monarchies, and I tend to associate the term "monarchism" with support for traditional institutions rather than despotism.

Somehow when Curtis Yarvin speaks of "monarchism" he doesn't mean that America should emulate the Nordic social democratic model.

[MacAnDàil]

Staving Mac from the Venting thread so I do not derail it:

Mental health is health, full stop. The day I got out of politics on Twitter was one of the best days of my life. My judgment is compromised by my issues and I cannot support either party.

Sure, mental health is an aspect of health but the problem with politics on Twitter is Twitter, not politics.

It isn’t just Twitter. My dad watches all manner of right-wing political YouTube and it depresses me.

Sure, it's not just Twitter. It's also other internet networks.

As well, my judgment is compromised due to my mental illnesses and I do not trust myself to make the best choice possible. I used to be a Trump supporter—look how that turned out; I however cannot in good faith support the Democrats either, and third parties in my neck of the woods are a non-starter. You can’t win and you can’t break even.

Why would you not support the Democrats? EDIT: And is it worse than the reason not to vote Republican?

I’m legitimately becoming a monarchist. Trump ruined the appeal of democracy for me and people at large are stupid.

Trump is not a professional politician, lost the popular vote and is not the general face of democracy. That's like saying you don't want to go to any restaurant any more because you ate a bad Big Mac.

Trump ruined the appeal of democracy for me and people at large are stupid.

Trump was chosen by the electoral college, not the people. As I conceive it, the purpose of politics is to force evil smart people to keep stupidity alive. Whenever I make any political statement, stupidity is always the thing I'm trying to save. The only alternatives to stupidity are genocide and dressed up genocide.

Sure, we ought to avoid genocide (and ecocide). But stupidity is not the alternative. To the contrary, IQ was rising through most of the 20th century worldwide until the 80s when cable TV came in. So, during the biggest democratisation in history we were also becoming more intelligent.

Absolute monarchy with modern technology and a modern state apparatus though? at best you get the Sauds.

Yes, indeed. And would anybody want to live there?

I think it's alright not to vote sometimes. When both options feel equally unappealing to you -- and I've certainly felt that way at times -- why vote?
(Though personally I think if I was an American I'd vote for the Democrats even if the local candidate happened to be an actual donkey. I think Trump and the MAGA crowd need an humiliating defeat so that everyone, and especially the Republicans can move on and offer actual, reasonable candidates. But I'm not an American and it's not really my fight. And again, it's still all right not to vote.)

I certainly agree that I would definitely vote for Democrat going. But I have never felt that both options were equally unappealling, even less so with the current American election with the ecocidal election-denying on only one side, the Republicans (and that's without getting to various civil and worker's rights)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Of course, but if he's explicitly contrasting "monarchy" with "democracy", he obviously isn't referring to constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a largely or completely symbolic role and actual power is exercised by the people through a democratically-elected parliament. (Or maybe he is? But I kind of find it hard to believe that someone on this board--even someone who doesn't participate in electoral politics--has that poor an idea of how political systems work.)

Yes, I know, I simply thought the contrast was rather absurd, as many relatively left-leaning democracies retain largely symbolic monarchies, and I tend to associate the term "monarchism" with support for traditional institutions rather than despotism.

Somehow when Curtis Yarvin speaks of "monarchism" he doesn't mean that America should emulate the Nordic social democratic model.

I'd never heard of that person before. From a cursory reading, he seems very... odd, to say the least.

[rotting bones]

Huh. I expected someone to challenge me on all actually existing societies forcing me to worship a fake deity.

Sure, we ought to avoid genocide (and ecocide). But stupidity is not the alternative. To the contrary, IQ was rising through most of the 20th century worldwide until the 80s when cable TV came in. So, during the biggest democratisation in history we were also becoming more intelligent.

What do you mean by rising IQ? I support raising literacy and numeracy, but IQ is defined as how you compare to the mean. If average "intelligence" rises, correctly normed IQ as strictly defined should not rise.

This is a very contentious subject. You should look at all the interpretations of the Flynn Effect (which IIRC still continues, although it's plateauing). For example, IQ fundamentalists also define intelligence as an innate characteristic that cannot be changed by education. It is possible for "IQ" to rise as "intelligence" falls modulo what children are taught, etc.

In the final analysis, this stuff practically boils down to angels dancing on pin heads; like all matters dealing with non-particulate essences.

PS. In psychometrics, intelligence is called "g factor" IIRC.

[zompist]

What do you mean by rising IQ? I support raising literacy and numeracy, but IQ is defined as how you compare to the mean. If average "intelligence" rises, correctly normed IQ as strictly defined should not rise.

This is a very contentious subject. You should look at all the interpretations of the Flynn Effect (which IIRC still continues, although it's plateauing). For example, IQ fundamentalists also define intelligence as an innate characteristic that cannot be changed by education. It is possible for "IQ" to rise as "intelligence" falls modulo what children are taught, etc.

You kind of say this, but I'd say it more boldly: the idea that intelligence is an innate characteristic is pseudo-science. There is no justification for defining it that way; it's at best a hypothesis, and at worst a quack idea that has been consistently disproven (cf. the said Flynn Effect).

It's not a priori ridiculous; but if someone said that (say) average height is a biological constant, and we must repaint our rulers if we find it changing, we'd rightly see them as a crank.

I think the Flynn effect is better put as "IQ tests measure something, and 20th century humans consistently scored better on that something." I've seen a convincing argument (sadly I forget the writer, though it appeared in the New Yorker) that that something is basically the ways of thinking useful to modern society, particularly to succeeding in a modern job. The whole process of schooling, and the process of "civilization", aims at that sort of thinking. It's pretty silly to equate that way of thinking with "intelligence". Premodern people often do very badly on IQ tests, not because they think badly, but because they think differently.

[zompist]

Just for fun, I did a quick Google for typical IQ test questions. Here's one that nicely illustrates the point made by the article I read.

Find the answer that best completes the analogy:
Book is to Reading as Fork is to:
a. drawing
b. writing
c. stirring
d. eating

The "correct answer" is d. This is obviously a test of whether you follow Western norms! But even given that, why is "stirring" a wrong answer? It's more intelligent to recognize that a tool has multiple uses! Plus, the test writer's analogy is pretty bad. A book is something you read; a fork is not something you eat.

Here's another.

Which of the five is least like the other four?
a. Eel
b. Shark
c. Dolphin
d. Swordfish
e. Turtle

This one is absurd, because even in a corporation there is no One Correct Way to organize everything. Turtles are the only ones that can live on land. Sharks are the farthest from the others in taxonomy (they are cartiliginous fish, the rest are all bony vertebrates). Dolphins are the only mammals in the list. Eels are the only ones normally eaten by the English. The swordfish is (if I'm reading its Wiki article correctly) the fastest one in the water.

Plus, it's easy to imagine that someone from another culture might pick another criterion entirely. Maybe all but one belong to a particular gender. Maybe only one is taboo for eating. Maybe only the dolphin is divine; maybe only the turtle provides trade goods.

I could do this all day, but then I'd just get murderous about test writers.

[Ares Land]

Besides all these excellent points, I'd add that intelligence is overvalued in our culture anyway.
I don't dismiss intelligence; but I'd take courage or common decency over high IQ any day.

[alice]

IQ measures how good you are at doing IQ tests, and very little else.

[Raphael]

Interesting, if somewhat meandering discussion, especially the intelligence stuff. Now, of course I agree with alice, but that's not all. I wouldn't completely dismiss the notion that there's some biological base for some mental abilities. Generally, I don't believe in a single thing called "intelligence". There's different mental abilities that may or may not be grouped together. For instance, I went to school with some people who were a lot better than me at math, but who, at the same time, seemed to have serious trouble understanding what seemed like very simple concepts to me in physics. And math and physics are usually seen as two closely related fields of knowledge.

But, that said, I don't think that those mental abilities are necessarily all down to environmental factors. Some people take to some subjects like a fish to water, while others need enormous amounts of effort to master them, or can't master them at all. This sometimes shows up long before people were really exposed to all that many environmental factors related to those subjects. That's probably at least partly innate.