Timeline for How to replenish an aristocracy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | StephenG - Help Ukraine | No. I'm suggesting you can't take up a position of any kind unless you can demonstrate you have acquired the necessary technical competence. E.g. the head of engineering should be an engineer with substantial practical field experience as one. The same for lawyers, accountants, medical, transport (a former bus driver in charge of transport sounds sensible to me ! :-)). This should be required legally - no caste membership loophole ! This creates a reason why people should respect their leaders - they will actually know what they're talking about and not jsut be political appointees. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:57 | comment | added | user28434 |
You need a system of exams, formal and legally binding (on both sides) to test for ability, inclination and deception. — Are you suggesting implementing mandarin bureaucracy?
|
|
| Jun 4, 2017 at 17:06 | comment | added | StephenG - Help Ukraine | Religion require that you believe in a God without proof (i.e. scientific proof) and requires you accept without questioning some ideas. It's impossible to completely reconcile this with a philosophy that requires you question everything, even the stuff you've already got substantial experimental proof of, and seek experimental proof of your theories. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 16:40 | comment | added | AlexP | Religion does not necessarily require belief without science. Consider the three main Abrahamic religions; Islam requires unquestioned belief and obedience, Christianism used to but in the last two or three centuries is has relented considerably, and Judaism stopped requiring it thousands of years ago. Not to mention that the Greek and Roman religions did not actually have dogmas in the Abrahamic sense. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 16:25 | comment | added | StephenG - Help Ukraine | Arabia : Religion - not objected to by population. Basis - long cultural history forms an anchor for population loyalty. Power yielded by spreading the wealth and bribes. Regionally can stay in power because alternatives are worse. Family and extended clan a major support for a feudal system. Army support because the alternative doesn't work well and social structure forms a barrier to opposition. External threats (e.g. Israel, ISIS) actually help a sense of loyalty. Sufficient infighting in royalty to give impression of variety of choice. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 15:55 | comment | added | WhatRoughBeast | Mmm. I find myself agreeing with most of what you say, but then a few pesky doubts intrude. The closest analogy I can see in the real world is Saudi Arabia. Run by a large ruling family, bound by religion, and hits most of the buttons you object to, but seems (at least in the short term) fairly stable. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 3:49 | comment | added | dcy665 | Well done, just the right edge of cynicism and information. When I post a world query I will look for your comments. Possibly in several others before I post mine. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 1:34 | history | answered | StephenG - Help Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |