Monarchism

Post Reply New Topic

Wasn't that the basis of the i-robot film when the central computer decided humans were not to be trusted at all so it tried to take over completely and sent hoards of robots onto the streets to enforce its will.

I don't trust a computer either.

Yes, but that was because the computer was programed with the three laws of robotics which state not only that 1) a robot must not harm a human being, 3) nor by inaction cause damage to itself or another robot, but also ...

... that 2) a robot must not by inaction allow harm to come to a human. This law meant that the central computer felt obliged to save humans from themselves, from smoking and over-eating possibly, amongst other things! and so for "our own good" take over completely.

However a computer does not need to be programmed like that. And anyway the serious logical flaw in the film was that the central computer seemed to think that it could override the first, and most important law, of not actively harming humans, in order to carry out the second law.


Why?

Wouldn't it be good to get rid of the process by which generally uneducated people make uninformed choices about which figurehead loosely associated with a brand image should make decisions for them for the next 5 years?

And yet also avoid the abuses of power to which people invested with a lot of it ( eg: monarchy) tend to fall prey to.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Oct 2008, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am in principle against a monarchy because transfering the reign of power just within one family by standard, does not guarantee you a competent leader. Being the son from... is not saying anything about your capacities as a leader. In theory I am against it, however in my native Belgium I am currently supporting the monarchy for the reason that the royal family is a sort of glue that keeps the different parts of the country stick together, I fear a republic would open wide the door towards splitting the country. But this is an exceptional situation, generally I am against the idea of a monarchy.

I dont support democracy anymore neither, I lost my faith in it due to right wing rising in Europe. I support a socialist system like it is practised in China. It has flaws as well, but less flaws than other systems currently in use IMO.

Because a computer is a ruler like any other ruler. It functions by it's own programming just like other rulers function by their own desires. Perhaps it won't be corrupt, however, there is a lot of information that this computer can never have that it would have to deal with, and just in general, we are setting up a powerful ruler with an ideology governing it that will make us bow to that ideology's demands whether we agree with them or not.

I have always wondered what is would be like to live in a monarchial society.

That is why I suggested a centre-liberal programming for it, based on a general consensus of goals/limits arrived at by currently elected representatives, so that the majority of people would be content with the principles involved, as now. A "mixed" system which would use policies flexibly depending on need.

Where there is difference of opinion now over what constitutes the best approach perhaps the computer would be able to make a better/clearer decision based on greater knowledge, on processing far more data relating to the long term interests of everybody, than most people ever do/can. As you say it wouldn't be corruptible.

What sort of data do you imagine that it would need in order to run the country(ies) but which it wouldn't get?

.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Oct 2008, 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Obviously it would only be able to weigh up and assign value/priorities as it was programmed to do, so perhaps a team of especially elected cross-party reps would have to be created to discuss the relative value of environment, welfare etc as many of the currently elected ones won't have been elected with such long-term decisions in mind.

Or maybe a referendum could be conducted which asked each and every citizen ( of all ages?) in what order of priority etc they placed various issues, and the computer could use that as its "value/priority-assignment guide. And that guide could be updated, ( by referendum again), at regular/fixed intervals so that the computer stayed in line with the desires of its "subjects".

It would be interesting just to set up such a programme and see where it would take us, if only in the short term, ( data for a future under its rule obviously not being available if it was just a "test").

.

Monarchs are not constrained by popularity contests. Where an elected representative wonders "Will this decision come back to haunt me when I run for reelection?" a monarch wonders "Is this the best decision for my country?" Also, the stability that monarchy confers is an excellent advantage. With a democracy, policies swing back and forth as uninformed popular opinion does the same, and the populist reaction to getting out of a tough spot will often cause more problems than it solves. A monarch will be able to pursue a long-term plan with greater efficacy because they will be reasonably confident that their power will not evaporate after a few years. Also, regardless of whether a monarch is chosen by heredity or some other method (pick your poison) they can be trained from an early age to be prepared for governance, in contrast to politicians who receive no special training in administering a government. An added benefit of monarchy/autocracy is that it permits us to dispense with politics- we have a person who is responsible for running the country, and there aren't any protracted and costly political campaigns that just turn into soap operas by the end of it.

Sorry ouinon, but the whole computer-king idea just sounds stupid to me.

Anarchism?


That would be why I would not be so fond to absolute monarchy, without a constitution to limit their absolute power I would say that to be dangerous. Unless I am the one in power, then I would not have problem with it


I trust them more than humans.

It needn't be a hereditary post by patrilinear descent. The position of Holy Roman Emperor was an elected one.


I think Chinese Communism would be one of the worse systems to choose from.

Why? It seems to me to have as much if not more potential than a monarchy.
.

VIKY's logic was and is undeniable.

Aren't you exercising some power over them by insisting that they also spurn the imposition of authority?


Well, in reality no monarchy is ever absolute, as most monarchs have to share power to a degree with some form of aristocracy/nobility or other elite, and I could also support a constitutional monarchy of some sort.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Oct 2008, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Way too sci-fi, and it lacks flexibility. Your proposed solution to that was to have periodic referendums; how is that different from democracy? And democracy sucks, ergo your system sucks as well. Besides, what do you do when the computer crashes, or there's a power failure? Who's going to be trusted to program this thing without slipping in their own preferences? Who's a skilled enough programmer to write this without a ton of bugs? Imagine the impact of a simple oversight in writing the code for such a program.