Maybe we do need Kings.

[max_]

Insofar as society is structured to produce a need for hierarchical rulers to manage the populace, society will be unable to produce rulers fit for implementing such management.

ebola

Okey, so the actual "craving" for leaders is what makes it impossible to have leaders that actually fulfill those cravings (i.e we get despotism). I don't think so, I think that leaders are in fact naturally occurring no matter how society may be structured. The thing is that there are many SOBs out there who take advantage, and many more morons who let them take advantage (we are those morons).
What might work is smaller groups of people with stronger leaders. Think city-states or provinces. Those could be confederate but the people would actually get to see their upper leader face to face and know where them lives.

 

[Comrade Kane]

I don't see any evidence we crave kings. I do not. Perhaps you do?

Yes we see kings and despots and elite rich popping up all the time but that's not because society you or me wants to follow them it's simply because those individuals want to be kings and so on. They con us into letting them or they otherwise trick us or force us into service.

In fact throughout history human society has a record of regularly rising up and cutting all their heads off of these wanna be wielders of authority over the common man.

No we don't want them. They force themselves on us then change the laws around so we can only get them out through violence they imagining we won't stoop to that level. That is their undoing, underestimating our will to be free and that always costs them their heads eventually.

In life your either reactionary or whatever the opposite is.

 

[ebola?]

Okey, so the actual "craving" for leaders is what makes it impossible to have leaders that actually fulfill those cravings (i.e we get despotism).

This isn't quite what I meant. Rather, the same set of social conditions that leads to the need of people to be coercively managed (that is, those social conditions which leave people either at a loss for direction or predatorally self-interested in the absence of external command) also will also lead those inserted into positions of authority to act capriciously and predatorally. If the prevailing social framework produces individuals unfit to self-manage and cooperate, how could this framework produce people fit to direct others to do so?

The coercive apparatus itself will select for those individuals with great aptitude in usurping and consolidating their power over others, not those most talented in creatively and unyieldingly benevolently solving others' problems.

I don't think so, I think that leaders are in fact naturally occurring no matter how society may be structured.

I view this type of natural leadership as akin to 'expertise': some people come up with good ideas from time to time, and groups are free to recognize and adopt these ideas.

What might work is smaller groups of people with stronger leaders. Think city-states or provinces. Those could be confederate but the people would actually get to see their upper leader face to face and know where them lives.

When placing strong limits on the power of kings, why have kings rather than 'experts' at all?

ebola

 

[max_]

@ebola I think I agree with everything you've said on your last post. One thing I didn't say is that I'm not talking about Kings in the old sense of the word like Louis XIV or something. I meant super powerful people, leaders who not only have a lot of power but also a lot of money and who are above the law (like what we have now, but what I'm saying is that we should admit to it).
We are, after all, animals. Think about the leader of a pride of lions. He will get the bigger share of the deer. If instead of having to distribute a deer you'd have to distribute the lands of a country, a bunch of dollars, transatlantic ships and so on.. well the leader would get the bigger share and that's only natural.

 

[nickels]

Hierarchy is, in my opinion, the root of almost all humanity's problems.

^
This.

 

[Heroic]

We also need world peace and no countries with borders, but that too will probably never happen.

 

[P A]

When placing strong limits on the power of kings, why have kings rather than 'experts' at all?

If what you're advocating is a minimalist technocracy, there had better be a damn near foolproof criterion by which to assess intellectual merit if you want to avoid abuses and ensure the continued liberty of the citizens. This also raises the issue of what essential moral alternative a benevolent dictatorship offers to someone currently living under the authority of a 'lite king.' Are these two options meaningfully distinguishable from an ethical or libertarian perspective?

 

[panic in paradise]

When placing strong limits on the power of kings, why have kings rather than 'experts' at all?

Because an expert is often best used as a witness, providing insight or an example of the application of their field of profession.

A king is born expected to have the capabilities of judgement, intellect, and instincts to direct those of merit who direct the laymen of society.

Quote Originally Posted by Flailing_Gypsy View Post
I strongly disagree. We don't need 'kings' or leaders, we need cooperators... we need eachother. Hierarchy is, in my opinion, the root of almost all humanity's problems.

As ebola? mentioned, we as people are always looking for a figure greater then ourselves, to provide an axiom of perfection, a model for oneself to replicate as consistently as possible. otherwise, our game of life would probably end in a stale-mate.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Because an expert is often best used as a witness, providing insight or an example of the application of their field of profession.

A king is born expected to have the capabilities of judgement, intellect, and instincts to direct those of merit who direct the laymen of society.




.

A king is never born a leader, rather they are usually born into a position where leadership is taught. A perfect example id the Dalai Lama. He was simply "selected" and then placed within an inner circle of wise teachers who guided and nurtured him into a great leader. This wasn't fate, or some divine accident, it was a clever use of all the resources of the Tibetan Buddhist faith. I have no doubt he would not be the same man had he simply stayed with his parents in a humble hamlet of Tibet. The same could be argued for the most powerful and successful ruling lineages who had the resources to pass on a highly valued education from generation to generation.

 

[panic in paradise]

A king is never born a leader, rather they are usually born into a position where leadership is taught. A perfect example id the Dalai Lama. He was simply "selected" and then placed within an inner circle of wise teachers who guided and nurtured him into a great leader. This wasn't fate, or some divine accident, it was a clever use of all the resources of the Tibetan Buddhist faith. I have no doubt he would not be the same man had he simply stayed with his parents in a humble hamlet of Tibet. The same could be argued for the most powerful and successful ruling lineages who had the resources to pass on a highly valued education from generation to generation.

"If you have life in you, you have access to the secrets of the ages.
For the truth of the Universe resides in each & every human being."
- Ueshiba

 

[Grizzly Green]

Benevolent Dictatorship = best form of government. So yes we do need Kings.

 

[jpgrdnr]

To the OP, and in reference to the title...its that sort of insular speculation that will send us back 800 years to some form of dark Medieval Europe...

But the fear is that in some form of future, nay economic collapse, Kings will need us and we will have nothing to do with them.

Its a regressive notion, is my point.

 

[jpgrdnr]

Benevolent Dictatorship = best form of government. So yes we do need Kings.

The simple fact that absolute power resides in one person means there is no benevolent action.

 

[max_]

To the OP, and in reference to the title...its that sort of insular speculation that will send us back 800 years to some form of dark Medieval Europe...

But the fear is that in some form of future, nay economic collapse, Kings will need us and we will have nothing to do with them.

Its a regressive notion, is my point.

I'm not talking about Louis XIV here. I'm talking JP Morgan.
My argument is not that we are lacking kings now. What I'm saying is that we never stopped having kings and there may be a reason for it (ie we need kings, we need someone who plays that role)

 

[Busty St Clare]

We need strong leaders who sometimes have to make unpopular decisions for the good of all. Democracy by it's very nature is a popularity contest and as such makes it hard to make the "correct" decision if it means you will not be voted into power. A King doesn't have this concern.

 

[Heroic]

Giving power to people is a faulty concept at its core. How could you grant absolute power to a single person and expect them to act like the ultimate figure of benevolence, rather than using that power to enjoy himself and get fat in his chair/bed/something?

Government is a broken concept, since you can't really judge with certainty and determine who actually WANTS to help people and contribute to his country, rather than just exploit it. People are born liars, more or less. But then again, without a government to uphold some illusion of order, the world can't progress and eventually it would be thrown into a chaotic anarchy where everyone does what they want. It's a paradox really.

 

[jpgrdnr]

I don't really see how a corporate entity equates to a monarchy. A CEO resigns at the mere speculation of corporate malfeasence, the shareholders rattle the chains every time profits are lower than expected (Apple).

Wouldn't you agree that the majority being submissive to supreme authority is bad? Maybe Bush Sr. to Bush Jr. is some sort of dynasty of power, but I don't think its that simple. The largest reason people have the right to bear arms in America is to give the populace the ability to overthrow the government. People should not live in fear of the government, the government should live in fear of its people.

I'm supporting your point really. In times of crisis people look to leaders for support. Where a "king" will rise would be a state of total chaos that the person with the largest power base seizes control. Its not a great form of government. Its very quickly disposed of and its largely made out of fear. Just look at the Middle East. Or Iran.

To jump ahead: Anyone willing to chime in on the need to be a King of Self? The need to rule ourselves, our bodies and our minds?

 

[Busty St Clare]

Where a "king" will rise would be a state of total chaos that the person with the largest power base seizes control. Its not a great form of government. Its very quickly disposed of and its largely made out of fear. Just look at the Middle East. Or Iran.

What about the Commonwealth? They have a Queen (and when she dies a new King) and have lived relatively peacefully for hundreds of years.

 

[jpgrdnr]

What about the Commonwealth? They have a Queen (and when she dies a new King) and have lived relatively peacefully for hundreds of years.

Well for one, being Canadian, the Queen is a figurehead, a cultural symbol and holds no real power (beyond being ridiculously wealthy and having land). Even in Great Britain the Queen holds no political power. Its simply a nod to historical colonialism.

I suppose what I'm getting at is neo-feudalism. Basically Mad Max. After, say, civil war/government collapse you will have a power vacuum. The person with the most guns is self-proclaimed a "king" or more properly a despot. He/she would rule their prospective powerbase/land as they see fit or until a stronger force destroys them.

 

[jpgrdnr]

What about the Commonwealth? They have a Queen (and when she dies a new King) and have lived relatively peacefully for hundreds of years.

Well for one, being Canadian, the Queen is a figurehead, a cultural symbol and holds no real power (beyond being ridiculously wealthy and having land). Even in Great Britain the Queen holds no political power. Its simply a nod to historical colonialism.

I suppose what I'm getting at is neo-feudalism. Basically Mad Max. After, say, civil war/government collapse you will have a power vacuum. The person with the most guns is self-proclaimed a "king" or more properly a despot. He/she would rule their prospective powerbase/land as they see fit or until a stronger force destroys them.