Just make sure you back it up lol

The basis is that for example, in a population of size 100000, if the probabiliity of a person being wise is 0.4 (lol), the probability of the majority being wise is 0, while the probability of a monarch being wise is 0.4

And if, for example, we assume that 10% of the population is wise and they all vote for a good choice, then 45% of the unwise population has to vote for the good choice for it to have a majority of votes

Probability of a wise majority in a population of size 100000

I think the issue with democracy is that people aren't wise though

Fraction of votes for a good choice, according to the percent of wise people and the probability of an unwise person voting for the good choice

@Quarantine_Zone That is what is evident to anyone

And that a monarch that has been grown up their whole life to be the next monarch is much more likely to he wise

Even leftists love to talk about how dumb all the people are

@Quarantine_Zone Yes, that is something that also contributes in favor of monarchy, but sadly it can't be quantised as easily

This is all common sense: when the majority is perverse, then no decisions are good. The naive idiot always answers "hurr durr but a monarch can also be bad!"

So the answer is that there is, for example, a, let's say, 10% of probability of a monarch being wise, and a 0% of probability of a majority being wise

That, as has been said, assuming that the monarch is as likely to be wise as the general population, whose % I would say is rather in the 0.1% range

Neo-paganism is gay

It's like a tiny fraction better than being Buddhist or something

Aristides just rips on pagans super hard in his Apology in like 125 AD

Anyone here read Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism by JJ Overbeck? Saw it on the reading list and thinking about checking it out

@Mozalbete ⳩ I'd take issue with the 0% number personally, since you're making an argument based on math, you have to define how and why you set your variables the way you did.

e.g. 0.4 is entirely arbitrary

math and philosophy are poor roommates tbh

@Karu I have made the computations using probabilities ranging from 0.45 to 0.55 in 0.01 intervals. And that is enough, since pretty much anything less than 0.5 results in a non-wise majority. Which is completely redoundant, since the probability of someone being wise is observed from what % of the people are wise.

But the entire point is to show in a simple wise how one option has a probability of, let's say, 10%, and the other of 0% so that brainlets don't say "hurr durr but monarch ca be bad too"

The problem with using probability in this way is that it's not a single trial, it's multiple trials over a long period of time. Just because a monarch is more likely to make the correct decision doesn't mean his successor is... and in fact I'd wager that over the entire period of recorded history, the number of bad decisions made by both is roughly equal.

Worse, when the decision being made doesn't hinge on a moral question, defining correct and incorrect decision is a lot murkier.

The samples are not decisions, but people

Over the entire period of recorded history, the normalized and glorified filth of today is well above anything else

Monarches are, first, capable of making a morally correct decision when there is a perverse, hedonistic alternative

the majority is not capable, that is what these statistics reflect

It helps that the entire democratic reality we experience every day perfectly backs up everything I say.

It backs that the majority is often incapable of making moral decisions. That does not, however, necessarily prove that a king, merely by virtue of being king, makes perfect decisions.

Not only often, pretty much never

If 90% of people are degenerates, then you need around 45% fo them to vote for a non-degenerate choice

And I think everyone here will agree that it is impossible. A monarch, at worst, has a 10% chance.

Of course, when the first monarch appears, he will obviously be someone who is righteous enough to fight against the perversion, so the chance of him making good decisions is much better

Modernity BTFO’d

The chances of a monarch making a bad decision are entirely dependent on the character of the monarch.

Yeah

Well I mean, unless it's an absolute monarchy there are other factors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppeMghxP9lc