Ok, cultural continuity, and what if those traditions become inherently toxic to the expansion/continuance of the society in question? Is it in good form to excise those beliefs or traditions?

Legit question

Can you give me an example

@Soup Can Sam

Zoroastrian burials I guess is an alright one?

I kinda blanked on examples off the top of my head

I don't know why you went right to beliefs and ignored customs

Zorastrian burials are pretty gay but I say that because I don't like the religion

Well zoroastrian burial is still a custom by nature

i was thinking you would bring up more western examples because that's the civilization I was talking about

I have to admit I really couldn't care less about indo-iranian pagan culture, it's pretty dumb and I don't really care about it

My argument is geared more towards my culture specifically because that's the lens through which I view the world

and make my argument from

Aight, how about monarchy and transferal of power based on genealogy instead of competency?

I don't think that was a bad thing

hmm

I was not expecting that answer

How is it not a bad thing?

I can answer that for you but that's probably besides the point trying to be made

If you have a line of totally incompetent rulers your society can potentially end

If continuance is the most important goal, you want the most competent leaders in order to give your society, and therefore your traditions, the best chance at surviving

Ok i'll respond then

I don't believe that meritocracy is really good, competency is viewed through the eyes of people and is limited and regulated through lens of someone, who may or may not be competent

If you have an incompetent person or persons handing over the power you'll have an incompetent system

I believe in republicanism and I don't even want monarchy, but the lack of social mobility in monarchy was good for the time because it's a highly conservative system for a civilization that's achieved an acceptable level of greatness

I think right now we've shrunken from that so feudal monarchy isn't really gonna be good (especially in a post-industrial society)

I kinda want to address what the major flaws of monarchy are in my opinion before we move on. I think they are twofold. Firstly, there is the eventual chance based on math alone that a totally incompetent leader will come from genetic succession and dismantle a competent and functional system as a result of their incompetence based solely on his genetic relationship with the previous leader. The second flaw comes from the consolidation of power under a single individual. You have much less chances of gaining a successful leader through genetic succession than through election and demonstrations of merit. That's simply the case because power is consolidated under a single person and as such that person will usually never have the acumen to manage all aspects of an empire properly. It certainly isn't a perfect system but I think it works significantly better and I think that's demonstrable from history. I mostly agree with the republican system as being the best compromise between representation while preventing the tyranny of the masses and simultaneously providing a sort of safety net of competence in leaders. If that makes any sense.

Ack I dropped a sentence, fuck

Ok fixed it

HAY

Don’t delete what I said

Lmao

As I was SAYIN

paragraphs ? Nani

Uhh I can't really abridge this one sorry

Get out

Well as I said, I don't believe we should have a monarchy. My whole point was to say that feudal monarchy was an incredibly conservative system, and is great for preserving a great civilization. As for what you said regarding your position on the flaws of monarchy, I see flaws in your reasoning here, i'll try to address it point by point:

1: In a Monarchy, you can have a bad ruler. This is impossible to not admit. There have been bad monarchs, there are bad monarchs, and there will be bad monarchs. However with a Feudal monarchy the ruler derives his power from the hierarchy he's at the top of. There is the monarch, then the vassals, all the way down to the serf. Each part of the hierarchy gives power to the man above him. If the Monarch is a failure, then the vassals will simply refuse to support his bad actions (in most cases). This leads to an incredible ability to preserve a nations stability, however it does not lead to a country advancing as much as ,say, the system the Roman Empire had would. A Monarch could come and ruin everything, so could a republic, the difference is with a Monarchy is that when the monarch is bad they normally lose their ability to exercise their power while in a democracy they would still legally have the power to implement their bad actions.

2: From what I can tell, your argument here is mostly that a system that has an Absolute ruler can not accurately compute all of the information necessary to govern a realm. I think this stems from a lack of understanding on your part of what an absolute monarchy means. An Absolute Monarchy isn't a government where one person make all the decisions, it's where all the power in the state is invested into the central ruler and there is no checks or balances on their power. They can make any decisions they desire.

I should state for the record that I don't believe in monarchy, I believe in something in the middle of democracy and Feudal monarchy. Something like an Aristocratic Republic.

Oh my GOD

aGAIN?

Hmm that's an interesting take, I'm gonna digest this one although it's also a night I have to wake up at 6 AM for so I need to sleep. So for tonight I'm gonna have to leave it at this

Nice