If you get a good ruler, they can do a lot of good for their people in a very short amount of time compared to liberal democracies. The tradeoff for that is if you get a bad ruler, well.... it’s a roll of the dice and you crit fail on 3 or lower.
I mean, that’s semantics. Same is true of any centralized authority. You need to delegate and adapt policies to local conditions, allowing people sufficient freedom to benefit you. I’m not saying that monarchy has ever been preferable to egalitarian anarchy or something like that. Just that democracy tends to have a narrower range of outcomes because the risk of incompetence is spread among more people. I suppose I’ve never tried to identify a particular monarch who made more improvements for their people during their reign than the average democratic government has. That would be an interesting problem to try and quantify
If you get a good ruler, they can do a lot of good for their people in a very short amount of time compared to liberal democracies. The tradeoff for that is if you get a bad ruler, well.... it’s a roll of the dice and you crit fail on 3 or lower.
deleted by creator
I mean, that’s semantics. Same is true of any centralized authority. You need to delegate and adapt policies to local conditions, allowing people sufficient freedom to benefit you. I’m not saying that monarchy has ever been preferable to egalitarian anarchy or something like that. Just that democracy tends to have a narrower range of outcomes because the risk of incompetence is spread among more people. I suppose I’ve never tried to identify a particular monarch who made more improvements for their people during their reign than the average democratic government has. That would be an interesting problem to try and quantify