No. A known evil is better than an unknown good

I can't imagine myself not acting nepotistic should I be in such a position. Unless the person in question is truly incompetent. Is it really evil to put your family above others?

No, it often works quite well.

I haven't worked a single day of my life so I wouldn't know

Meritocracy is better.

>>672
Meritocracy promotes infighting and political games. Much better to raise a child from birth to be good at the job of his parents and then to succeed him, that way he is the most competent at the job but also it removes infighting.

>>673
that exists in nepotism where multiple children compete for the role of dady's favorite

>>674
Just have the oldest child inherit.

>>675
This has been tried before and resulted in family assassinations and treachery for the role of becoming the king. The anime trope of the rich eldest sibling not wanting to inherit the company and instead live the life they want. There are so many problems with such a hard stance on nepotism and they stem from not viewing individuals as people, but machines that fulfill roles set out by their parents. At least in a meritocratic system people are treated as people.

nepotism breeds corruption
corruption bad
meritocracy involves competition
competition good
the invisible hand of the market is all we need
blast promonarchist peasants to pieces, skin commies alive

no, don't kill people. that's not right either

>>676
It actually worked most the time regarding kings, remember that most of history has been under that system. What you are thinking of is Rome and Rome didn't have that kind of a succession system. In fact the first Emperor to give the title to his son was Vespasian.

>>679
It didn't work at all and resulted in democracy when people got smart enough to realize that a king is not the population. I'm thinking of Britain and Germany. ince I was actually educated in Britain I know a little bit about it's history and the shortcomings of the monarchy. And you might as well just stop saging, it's not like you're actually making the board better with your political topic.

>>680
Britain still has a monarch and Germany only lost theirs through a war. But anyway usually they would only revolt due to economic turmoil and other such problems that sometimes might be the result of a monarch but sometimes were not, and sometimes they even go right back to a monarch afterwards anyway, as they did in France with Napoleon(and Napoleoon III).

I really don't care where you were educated either.

first sentence, barely relating to anything.
second sentence, factually untrue the British crown and German crown regularly had religious wars, assassination attempts and various other conflicts. France's King was so incompetent, the Russian Tsar was hella incompetent. And if you want any amazing sign of how bad monarchies are, the US destroyed the British crown.

And you should care because I am far smarter than you and was educated under public education systems that made me respect the system of government and laws that maintain it, unlike some sick in the head fucker like you and the others who think it's better to kill others or rule them under your thumb on the guise of parental authority.

>>682
German crown... German crown... There was no German crown until after the Franco-Prussian war. You are thinking of the HRE which was always going to be a mess. But those religious wars you mention were not caused by the various crowns themselves.

Frances King. Russia's Tsar. I notice you use singular and that really is the crux of the matter. As I said, it's a system that we have used for most of our history, finding bad examples is not hard.

>And if you want any amazing sign of how bad monarchies are, the US destroyed the British crown.

This is ludicrous... If you knew even a smattering of history regarding the very nation you claim you were educated in you would know Britain was already ruled by the parliament at that point. But even so, it would not have mattered who ran Britain.

>And you should care because I am far smarter than you

I'm sure you are, public education has done marvels...

fuck off tard. I'm done talking with you.

having mommy buy you ice cream feels good
buying ice cream yourself feels bad!

NEETism > *

>>667
>>669
>>670
The problem with nepotism is that it's usually got nothing to do with actual competence. You end up with a lot of situations where complete morons end up in positions of power because they were friends with the right guy.

Using myself as an example, my friend makes music. If I ever got the chance to do a big project, my fist instinct would be to hire him for the soundtrack, because he's my friend and I'd feel like I'd be letting him down if I didn't. But he's not actually all that great of a musician, and by going with him instead of a professional, I'm damaging the overall product.

It's not nessarily bad unto itself, in the sense that you sometimes get good results from it, but you can't build an institution on "sometimes" and expect it to stay up. Reliability is important, especially as you get higher up, and nepotism is the definition of unreliable.

>>672
The problem with meritocracy is that it assumes skill at one level will automatically translate to skill at another, which oftentimes isn't the case. A lot of companies are run like crap because they promote competent people to positions that they're ill equipped for, while keeping mediocre to bad employees where they are

>>673
>>675
>>679
Monarchy isn't a bad system; it does the job well enough, and plenty of successful societies either used it or still use it to some extent. Democracy is better though. Monarchy sufferers from the same problem as nepotism, where a complete retard can end up as king because he was the previous king's favorite. Democracy doesn't nessarily have a perfect track record with this either, but it's a lot less prone to corruption. The king picks a successor based on self-interest, and if that self-interest doesn't align with the needs of the kingdom as a whole, you're boned. Democracies, on the other hand, always work in favor of public interest to at least some extent.

>>687
>Democracies, on the other hand, always work in favor of public interest to at least some extent.
I don't think this is universally true. One of the contradictions exposed in democracy explained by LoGH is that a democracy cannot function unless its participants are acting in good faith. More than just simple corruption, there is nothing within a inherently within democracies that demands that an official must subscribe to the ideals of maintaining said democracy. Thus, democracies can be much more unstable because if they operate through meritocracy then elements against democracy can be elevated to positions of power. This is of course an issue that played out in reality as well; the rise of fascism in Europe post-WWI is one such example.

Likewise, outside of discussing the subversion of democracy, there is nothing inherent in democracies that makes them more equitable. Participants in a democracy can be just as bigoted as participants under any other system of government, and as such it's completely feasible that a democracy votes to oppress some group or another. Needless to say, but this works against the public interest to a great extent. This is why many democracies have lists of unalienable rights, because the interests of the public must be disregarded to protect minority interests, and to protect against governmental over-reach.

That said, when acknowledging theses flaws in democracy it comes with the understanding that the flaws in Feudalism, and Monarchies are much more extreme because positions of absolute authority by their very existence disregard the notion of rights.

>>687
>Democracies, on the other hand, always work in favor of public interest to at least some extent.

Not really, in Australia for example, the government does what benefits mining companies not the public and when one prime minister actually tried to tax them more(as they are not taxed much as it is) he was removed. And even the response to COVID was controlled by that, the committee the government assembled to decide what economic actions we should take to recover was made up by gas companies and people with interest in gas companies and and the like, so what do we get? A gas led recovery.

They don't need to do what benefits the masses they just need to market themselves better that the other guys and that often resolves a good relation with the media.

And plus the masses don't know or care enough to know what they want anyway. They are idiots.

The Greatest argument against democracy is a five minute Conversation with the average voter, as Winston Churchill said.

>>689
I never said democracy was perfect, just that it was better than the alternative.

>>690
I disagree but fine.

>>689
>And plus the masses don't know or care enough to know what they want anyway. They are idiots.
look at the results of swiss referendums, there are indeed plenty of idiots, but not the majority

>>692
I took a quick glance but I really could not see anything particularly unusual about it, nothing that would indicate they either are idiots or not idiots. But there were a few referendums that I am kind of surprised didn't get through, such as the clean water bill, the various green food bills and the anti-Sprawl bill. But then I don't know anything about Swiss Politics or what the Bills actually wanted to implement so I can't really say for sure whether there decision was stupid or not.

I disagree with gay marriage as well but that is more personal I guess. It's interesting to see that it was fairly close to the result we got in Australia though.

This thread is getting dangerously close to the sort of politics I come here to avoid.

yes, and two of the council of three think it's a bad thread and that the guy who wants to replace his government with a monarchy is dangerously close to stepping outside of the realm of philosophy and into activism, but it's not quite there yet so there's nothing to do.

>>694
I myself feel that way too and I made this post >>693 the problem is that I feel compelled to reply to posts even though that ends up taking the thread in directions I don't want it to go... I won't reply to any more such posts.