"'Even if the democratic assumption - that the eternal verities can be discovered by counting enough noses - were true,' said Rusch, 'you cannot repeal eight hundred years of history by decree.'" (p. 166)
"Hans von Thoma Rusch, Margrave of Drakenstane, Lawman of the Western Folkmote, Hereditary Guardian of the West River Gates, et cetera..." (p. 158)
- expresses aristocratic contempt for democracy! We do not discover eternal truths by merely counting ourselves but we do discuss and vote on practical policies. Do aristocracies guard eternal verities, by the way? Some aristocrats will have used their leisure to become philosophers, scientists or artists but let's liberate that creative potential in an entire population, not just in an elite.
What of his claim that history cannot be repealed by decree? Societies can change quickly when forced to. When a privileged social layer has been deprived of its privileges, some members of that layer will accept, and even welcome, a new egalitarianism whereas others will emigrate in an attempt to preserve their superiority elsewhere. A single generation can be brought up differently.
Earth can send:
"'...psychotechnic advisors...'" (p. 166)
"'...peace groups and psychotechs...'" (p. 189)
The latter is Rusch's jaundiced description. He comments:
"'...permit me to give thanks that I won't live to see their work completed!'" (ibid.)
In any case, it seems that the science of psychotechnics has been developed and applied in this fictional future as in Anderson's Psychotechnic History.
20 comments:
The great merit of hereditary succession to office is that the person in question isn't -necessarily- consumed by an all-powerful lust for power.
Which, in a competitive system (which a democracy necessarily is) he or she -will- be obsessed with power. Not necessarily for bad reasons, but they will be.
There are drawbacks too, of course -- the hereditary successor may be a clown or a dimwit.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree. And if you have a prime minister who does most of the day to day governing, that lessens the damage done from a monarch who's a clown or dimwit.
Paul: Democracy only works when the laws, customs, institutions, etc., exist within a nation allowing it to work. And only as long as all parties and factions within it are willing to accept defeat from time to time. If not, forget it, then you will get violent changes of power.
In the US democracy broke down in 1860-61 when a huge part of the country refused to accept the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, resulting in a bloody civil war. And I fear the system might break down again--because of left wing Democrats desperate to cling to power and willing to do anything to keep it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is there not any other threat to US democracy at present?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, the US is also menaced by jihadist Islam and rivals like China and Russia.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No one else?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Iran and N Korea. The thuggish theocracy in Tehran has considered itself at war with the US for decades, and doing its worse to injure and harass us. Most recently by using its terrorist catspaws for attackig Israel and disrupting international trade and commerce in the Red Sea.
Ad astra! Sean
No one else in the US?
Kaor, Paul!
The entire woke crazed radical left of the Democrats, using senile, corrupt, bungling "Josip" as their puppet! I'm not forgetting or forgiving their weird or sickening obsessions: "legalized" abortion up to and including the moment of birth, out of control deficit spending and borrowing, out of control illegal immigration, neglect of the military, weakness before the enemies of the US. To say nothing of their depraved obsessing with forcing so called "transgenders" on us, no matter how much harm that does to real women. I could go on, adding such things as the eruption of antisemitism seen among US leftists since 10/7.
I have many reasons for fury against radical leftists and believing them a threat to democracy and the US!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is there an elephant in the room?
Paul.
Paul: I guess I will explicitly mention the 'elephant in the room'.
Sean:
You seem to be allowing your dislike for Biden and the Democratic Party in general, to blind you to the way Trump and his supporters are trashing the importance of *legitimate* succession.
You seem to approve of the way Flandry considers legitimacy essential in a fictional empire. It is equally important in a real democracy.
Kaor, Jim!
I was wondering when someone would mention the Demonic Donald! I am going to make some hard points many will not like.
First, there are some legitimate grounds for thinking the corrupt Democrats tampered with the ballots of several key states in 2020. And given their long history of dirty tricks that's easy to believe. However, for the good of the US, my view is that Trump should have accepted the result of that dubious election. He would have been in a much better position for ousting "Josip" and his puppet masters this year!
Second, you need to keep in mind what a democracy is: an often fiercely competitive political system in which ambitious power hungry candidates will struggle hard to win elections. And that often means repulsive people seeking office. Over and over Stirling and I have pointed out competitive humans are.
Third, democracy works only when the right laws, customs, institutions, etc., necessary for it to work exists in a nation. And only if all parties, factions, candidates accept those rules. If not such a democracy will break down and eventually fail if respect for the old rules is not restored. My fear is the US may be nearing such--and that's largely because of the outrageous behavior of the Democrats over the last 60 years.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You left it to others to mention Trump who has consistently denied an election result without presenting any evidence, who tried to overturn that result by underhand means and who provoked the attack on the Capitol? And he did all this mainly because of the behaviour of the Democrats over 60 years?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except, despite the best efforts of Trump's deranged enemies, it seems increasingly likely he is not going to be tried for what you accuse him of. Because, as lawyers I've read have said (not all of them friendly to him) his alleged offenses does not reach the high bar set by the relevant statutes. Only what the law actually says matters. Or should.
The case against Trump in Georgia seems to be crashing into farce as the prosecutor, Fani Willis, stands credibly accused of corruption and bias.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Trump's enemies are deranged? What is he? I think that this wholly one-sided and total hatred (which is what it looks and sounds like) is completely inappropriate and unproductive. We have two major political parties in the UK and I usually vote for one as against the other but I do not regard either side as "deranged" or any of the other epithets that you unload on left Democrats.
Of course only what the law says matters in such a case but the law is interpreted and applied and professional experts argue about how to do it so this does need to be settled in court. Surely what Trump openly did in public is clearly wrong? He is recorded as trying to overturn a vote and as inciting a riot in which several people were killed. It is beyond me how this can be defended or played down while his "enemies" are denounced, condemned, ridiculed etc. Complete one-sidedness. Also, the evidence for election-fixing still needs to be presented.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, deranged enemies. A big reason why some who otherwise don't care for Trump are now sympathizing for him is because they can see how his fanatical enemies are warping and twisting the laws in their efforts to get him. Such as the truly outrageous and possibly unconstitutional damages levied on Trump in the defamation and alleged civil fraud cases.
I would far rather someone like Gov. DeSantis of FL would be the GOP nominee. Then we could focus on ousting the corrupt bungling dotard "Josip" and rolling back the catastrophic agenda of the radical leftist Democrats!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But is it necessary to warp and twist laws in order to indict someone who publicly denied an election result and tried to get the result overturned and who has not presented any evidence of electoral fraud?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
I am no longer so absolutely sure there was no fraud and corruption by the Democrats in the 2020 election. But only time and dispassionate research by future scholars will settle that matter.
And you are still not facing the fact a competitive system like a democracy inevitably means competition for power by ambitious politicians craving power. And that obviously opens the door to corruption.
The UK is fortunate to have a strong, stable constitutional monarchy. Because the Crown can act as a moderating, restraining, and stabilizing influence on ambitious, power hungry politicians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Have I denied that electoral politics involves competition, ambition and possible corruption? What practical conclusion is to be drawn from this? That we should denounce left Democrat corruption while understanding and excusing Trump's antics?
Two questions:
was there fraud in the 2020 election?;
was Trump right to allege fraud without evidence, to try to overturn the vote and to provoke a riot?
Paul.
From SM Stirling:
Also keep in mind that perceptive song:
"Meet the new boss
Just like the old boss..."
Revolutions can -replace- ruling classes; they cannot -abolish- them.
Vide the French and Russian revolutions, which both ended up replacing old, inefficient, limited autocracies with new, fresh, energetic ones.
Lenin and Napoleon both made their predecessors look much, much better.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that's why I'm so distrustful of Utopians, their dreams so often turn into nightmares. Instead of the gentle and well meaning Louis XVI and Nicholas II we got monsters and tyrants like Robespierre, Napoleon, and Lenin!
Well, compared to Lenin even Napoleon wasn't so bad.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment