Why wouldn't the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they'd keep each other in check instead? I think it's quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Mostly the same reason why democracy worked for quite a while too. As long as people believe in a system and see the benefits to themselves as well, they can go quite a while with it.

In general I also think most people aren’t out to screw one another, no matter how much it may seem that way sometimes, so as long as that keeps for the monarchs in a majority of districts, the system could balance itself.

But yeah, I’m not going to say it’s perfect. Sooner or later it would collapse, and when it does my money would be on the same reason as yours.

So I think the main question is: would it be able to last longer than democracies can, especially in the face of mass media manipulation and other challenges. I can’t prove it, but I suspect it might have a decent shot, mostly because the monarchs would be more agile to respond against unforeseen threats.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago

I think you'd get a better system looking at the roman republic than this crap. They had consuls who had the highest power, but it rotated every month between the two. Even they understood if you consolidate power it only leads to more consolidation. There's no way in hell this would be good for more than a generation or two.