| | I believe that it is in Double Star that Heinlein lays out a justification for monarchy. The speaker, while nominally the elected king of the solar assembly, is culturally a nineteenth century noble, perhaps Rudolf of Ruritania or the helpless aristocrats of Le Grande Illusion. In addition to your arguments, Heinlein suggests that the king has a vested interest in the future.
Also, to widen the quibbling, you claim that a king could become "tyrannical" and the word "tyrant" is pejorative. However, it was not always so. Tyranny, as a form of government, replaced monarchy and aristocracy, as merchants arose over farmers and philosophy eclipsed religion, all in the 700s BCE, among the Greeks of Ionia. The tyrant was a self-made man on the rise, a successful businessman with whom the town entrusted the economy (lit: "house management") of the state. It was at this time that coins were invented, likely to pay mercenaries who fought in the newly invented hoplite style.
The American republic was a revolt against monarchy, so monarchy is a tough sell among Objectivists. Monarchy places all the eggs in one basket: if the basket is corrupt, you can lose all the eggs.
I believe that no form of government is better than any other. All have strengths and weaknesses, absent a calculus of statecraft to prove which is better. What matters most is the dominant philosophy of the culture.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/24, 6:46am)
|
|
