[Potemkin]

We're not delivering this to the masses, we're discussing legitimate terms amongst ourselves. A strong executive, selected to serve for life term, is a monarchy. That we should call him something other than "King", "Prince", or "Emperor" is besides the point.

Precisely. The Romans had the same problem - they needed a monarch to run their empire, but couldn't call him a 'King' because of their traditional republicanism. They eventually settled on 'Imperator', which basically just meant 'commander-in-chief'. Likewise, the Americans nowadays would have a similar problem if they ever felt the need to have a king ruling over them; they would probably have to invent a new title for their King - I suggest 'Potus', derived from the acronym used by his bodyguards to refer to the President of the United States.

[Newfie-Con]

Personally I see the merit in both hereditary Monarchy (such as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) and electoral monarchy like the Holy Roman Empire. Although the Ancient Roman tendency to adopt the next Emperor was quite sucessful. I like the idea of one dynasty in order to provide stability although I do not think the monarch should be bound to pass the throne on to his legitimate heir especially if there is an even better alternative in the ranks of the nobility. If such a man arose, the monarch should seek to incorperate him into the dynasty through adoption marriage or if possible both. Even then the old phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" rings true and there should be some opposition or at least check on the monarchs power to prevent an outright tyrrany from forming. The average man should also have a voice in the lower house of such a parliament. This way the people still agave a voice while the nobility preserve tradition and values and the monarch prevents mob rule from forming. In regards to religion ideally the state would endorse ONE Church (prefferably Catholic but let us not get into a theological debate here) in such a way as mondern Greece does.

[Figlio di Moros]

Allow the Executive to select a vice executive, who performs the duties of office when the executive's incapacitated, and temporarily holds office while a new executive is being selected. Problem solved.

[Potemkin]

And what's to stop an over-mighty baron from simply making his move while the vice executive is holding office?

[Figlio di Moros]

Baron?

[starman2003]

..the princes, dukes or heirs are bred and raised to be in power from day one.

That is no guarantee against ineptitude.

I am in no way saying that monarchy is immune from corruption but neither is any other form of government.

It says much that monarchy has long vanished from the more advanced societies. If/when authoritarianism arises again, it'll be based on a party, a rational ideology, not blood, or "divine right." Longterm, the best solution may be to clone and perpetuate the person with the best known innate abilities. Absolute power doesn't always corrupt--look at the good emperors of the second century.

the state should endorse ONE church..

Forget it; christianity is hogwash; it should be discouraged and replaced with a rational worldview.

[Potemkin]

Baron?

Yes, we still have lots of those around, Figlio. I believe they are now called 'CEOs' or some such euphemism.

[Figlio di Moros]

Ah, I was worried you were speaking strictly from a European, and even more British, point of view. Corporations will prove a barrier for any meritocratic system; they've managed to adjust the system for capital accumulation, rather than diversification.

This will need to be circumvented and corrected, but in a binary or distributist system they'll find capital accumulation on a large scale much more difficult. This would limit their interference on a polical scale. I won't feign that such a political powerhouse couldn't "make a move" to create a new dynasty, but I can't see it being violent w/ political mechanisms in place.

[Newfie-Con]

That is no guarantee against ineptitude.

True, but as I said previously the monarch should not be bound to his blood heir, adoption or marriage or both.

It says much that monarchy has long vanished from the more advanced societies. If/when authoritarianism arises again, it'll be based on a party, a rational ideology, not blood, or "divine right." Longterm, the best solution may be to clone and perpetuate the person with the best known innate abilities. Absolute power doesn't always corrupt--look at the good emperors of the second century.

In truely advanced countries today where most are above the poverty line, the is no fascism either. I never said that absolut power always corrupts, I was referencing how one would need to be carefull in selecting his heir.

Forget it; christianity is hogwash; it should be discouraged and replaced with a rational worldview

Ok you are a rational person it seems, as a rational person would you reject the testimony of over 70 000 people who all whitnessed a miracle in 1917? It was there the Virgin Mary appeared and the next world war was predicted and if Russia was not Consecrated to the Heart of Mary by the Pope, Russia would spread her errors (communism) throughout the world. Russia was not consecrated at the time and look what happened with communism controlling over 1/3 of the world until the Soviet Union finally fell... which was after a Consecration ceremony by the Pope.

http://www.fatimaondemand.org/en/

[starman2003]

..there is no fascism either...

Apples and oranges. For the most part, fascism disappeared not because of innate faults but because it was simply overwhelmed by sheer enemy numbers. Also, while the title fascism is gone, some of the currently most successful countries, like China, might be characterized that way--they're capitalistic but nondemocratic. Now as for fatima....I won't claim it was mass hypnosis. To be perfectly honest, I think ET was responsible. Now I know most people would automatically dismiss such an explanation as "crazy" but it isn't 1% as crazy as a supernatural "god." It only represents a more progressed civilization than ours.

[Marie Rudolph]

Back to the original question gentlemen. I believe the ideal system of sustainable government with a balance of freedom and safety would be an imperium. Ruled by an Emperor or Regent in times when their is a new emperor not ready to take the thrown. Their would be a house of Dukes which would represent their separate fiefdoms and a conclave of elected people also from each fiefdom which would work with the Emperor to create a stable state. This would give the people an image they could focus their energies on a living breathing symbol of their government. Also with an Emperor government can move faster to quench the people's want fo quick deliberation to fix matters easily decided without hours of debate.

[Andropov]

Human beings naturally impose coercive institutions on themselves. A totalitarian state is needed to ensure personal liberties are not reflexively taken away from the populace.

[starman2003]

..house of Dukes which would represent their separate fiefdoms ...

What century are you living in?

A totalitarian state is needed to ensure personal liberties are not reflexively taken away from the populace.

Strange thinking....

[Rei Murasame]

Also, Starman, I disagree with your claim here:

For the most part, fascism disappeared not because of innate faults but because it was simply overwhelmed by sheer enemy numbers. Also, while the title fascism is gone, some of the currently most successful countries, like China, might be characterized that way--they're capitalistic but nondemocratic.

Simply having a capitalism with no democracy, is not really Fascism in the first place, it's probably the fastest way to kill Fascism off, since Fascism can't co-exist with liberal-capitlaism. While getting attacked from outside is one thing, it's possible to be perpetually attacked from within because of a faulty world-view or due to an an inability to really change the minds of the people (see: Spain, Chile).

They say Fascism is 'religious' for a reason, and it's because there is an element of purification which the population has to undergo. If they just come and do capitalism with an authoritarian state, then that is either just a puppet state, or some sort of degenerated state which has stalled and thus cannot be said to be Fascist.

[starman2003]

Certainly, China's orientation is far from pristine fascism. It lacks strong leadership and an aggressive foreign policy; it only wishes to compete in the economic sphere, not militarily (very much) or ideologically.

[Andropov]

That is not the only reason why I support authoritarianism.

[Cartertonian]

If we're going to turn a blind eye to Andropov's necro-posting, I'll at least edit the thread title into something that resembles English!

[Andropov]

The original necro post was done by Marie Rudolph, not myself. I was unaware of it until just now.

[Kayl Ryck]

It seems the conversation has diverted to issues of succession, interesting, but would it not be sufficiently straightforward for a ruling autocrat to choose for himself his successor?

By being "chosen" by the great person himself (not exclusive to nepotism), and bred in his ways, could this not best ensure stability and coherence in a shift of power? This pattern would continue, legitimacy secure and control maximised. Leaders of the past and their invaluable advice/remaining clout would then continue to remain accessible to those currently governing, presuming that the succession occurred before their death.

I've dabbled in this method a little in online group contexts, and stability has always been the outstanding result, along with producing a surprisingly loyal following.

[starman2003]

By being "chosen" by the great person himself (not exclusive to nepotism), and bred in his ways, could this not best ensure stability and coherence in a shift of power?

Sure, it's been done before, albeit for limited periods. In the future the great man may clone himself--potentially a great way to maintain quality and stability.