this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
1220 points (94.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5810 readers
2243 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even the best monarchs do not justify monarchy; it is a position inherently created for abuse. You may have a good king, or two, or ten - even kings who WILL put your wellbeing before their own interests - but invariably they will always be outnumbered by those who seek the position for the sake of abuse, or who succumb to the structure of the position which encourages abuse. Likewise with landlording. The problem isn't with individuals, the problem is with the system.

[–] lanolinoil@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient government type. The only problem is the odds of getting benevolence plus the impossibility of keeping it.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can't distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.

[–] Muetzenman@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.

[–] moormaan@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like this answer - succinct and to the point, but the last sentence is vague because "bad revolutionary" could mean "incompetent revolutionary" or "evil revolutionary" (am I missing a third meaning?). I'm assuming you didn't mean evil, but even so, an "incompetent" revolutionary could have issues with the execution of the revolution (eg. lack of courage) or with the desired outcome (eg. rallying behind a populist cause blindly). Would you care to clarify?

[–] Metype@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I believe they were paraphrasing part of a CGP Grey video, and if so, then "bad revolutionary" would mean a revolutionary not fit to revolt. Either by hunger, general weakness, or incompetence.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reminds me of the rules for rulers video by cgp grey

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yup. That video explains the problem very well.