I was reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense and got to thinking.

I agree with Paine that hereditary succession in monarchies isn't great. I think that it can work out sometimes, but other times be fatally disastrous.

Is there really much discussion here? One doesn't necessarily inherit leadership qualities from ones parents. Naming of the best availible successor (of the line or not) is going to be the best choice for a monarchy.

One of Paine's points was that they were too sheltered an cut off from a world that they were supposed to know. Do you agree?

Complete agreement with SI. Another stupid thing about heriditaries is that because they believed in 'royal blood,' there was almost always incest going on somewhere to 'preserve the blood.'

Because of this, however, recessive genes appeared. In short, they were killing themselves. There is no 'royal blood.' There are only leaders who have ability.

2nd Question - I agree. As 'royalty' it seems unlikely that they would mingle with commonfolk in 'normal' business. What do they care about peasants?

The Royals have to keep the commoners mollified and pacified. They don't want the common folk to rise up in numbers or to help their enemies.

Keeping people happy is not the same as caring about them, mind. One has personal benefit where the other is out of charity.

True. That reminds me of Britain around colonial times. They didn't protect the colonies in the French and Indian War because she cared about us, she just wanted to use use to make money.

Precisely. Mingling and making friends with 'commoners' is not the same as ruling over them and barely keeping them happy.

Whatever the case, I'm a firm believer in ability. If you've the ability and determination to do something, then do it; you'll likely be better than someone appointed to a position by other means. Determination overrules just about anything.

Do you think that hereditary rulers are totally incapable of ruling at all?

I personally think that it depends on the person and their upbringing.

No, though I do hold a biased viewpoint.

This seems like one of those debaetless topics with everyone just agreeing, which is boring. But oh well. >_>

Anyway, monarchies just suck in general as a form of government, which I'll delve into more later maybe (but right now I hurt like hell and thus I'm somewhat befuddled in general), but IMO tribal chieftains really had it about right, as government goes.

lukz liek itz tiem 4 dh

Hereditary succession has it's obvious pros. Such as the fact that searching for a leader becomes much easier. However the main point to address is the person that is being made the leader really suitable for the job? I would say hell yeah. Having lived in the atmosphere where the leader is around a decent amount of the time, and being taught long and hard on becoming a leader rather than just being your average person that wants to lead and finds some way to do it, is more likely to bare fruits.

Now I'm not saying they are the best person to be leading, but it saves a lot of time and it doesn't take the best leader for success. And seeing as the person will be serving until death, it's very easy to assume that they'll become quite a fine leader just over experience in due time.

So what's the downfall? There _could_ be somebody that would be better. Again, I can't stress enough that it would be harder to find this person that is very slightly better, if that, than the person taking up the roll, however lets say we find them. Now what? Chances are there's somebody better than them. Fact is there will always be somebody better than the current, and going out of our way when we have a perfectly fine leader just seems redundant.

Of course if something were to happen that would cause mutiny, then so be it. Appoint a new line of leaders. There's always some sort of a fall back that man kind can think of.

:rose:

Good leadership is a quality which is very difficult to teach. Almost all good leaders are born with natural talent to lead -- whether they're taught effective leadership techniques or not has little to no impact on that. A commoner with talent for leadership can very easily be a better leader than a member of royalty with training in such areas, especially when it comes to military issues.

It may be very easy to assume, but it's even easier to prove false. As said earlier, experience and training can only go so far. People have different talents, and if a royal heir doesn't have those talents, his training can only go so far.

I'd disagree with this, actually. People with truly exceptional leadership abilities tend to stand out if they choose to do so.

Whether that leader is perfectly fine or not is debatable, though. Especially after recessive genes and such things kick in, there's a fair chance the royal offering of heirs is gonna suck ass.

Mutiny is far from the best way for a civilization to transition from one government to another. It causes far more turmoil than, say, naming a successor.

...also, wrong word. I think you mean rebellion or revolt.

And my character's hotter

In summary: Leaders are far from being guaranteed to be decent; other potential leaders, while possibly difficult to find, also have a fair chance of being damn obvious; rebellion is really not as smooth as you imply; and I really shouldn't try to debaet when I'm tired and someone else is talking to me.

So does the accessibility of hereditary monarchs out weigh their inefficiency?

Dd you know that some Roman Emperor sent their children to live with the peasants so thaey saw what was the world without any luxury? That way, when they came back to rule they would know what it's like in the poor families and he would have an easier time relating to them and helping them.

Varies.

That sounds like BS to me, honestly, but if you show me a source I'll believe it. :awesome:

Whoa whoa whoa, when the hell did you take this kind of survey? I mean you could of said "generally" and given some back up for why being born with natural talent increases the chance of you being a good leader. But no, you just say this.

And that spews a debate on natural intelligence. I'm very adamant against it being real. Everything that shapes a person happens after their actual exsistance begins, because otherwise it's not even _possible_ for them to be altered. Rather from the very first second they start to learn things from their senses. Feeling helps determine posture and normal functions. Sight aided with what has hurt you before tells you what may hurt you now. It's a quick process to be acting normally enough amongst other from this theory alone.

And, lets say hypothetically it is possible to have natural talent, even though there is hardly any backup provided for it. Who's going to be born with the gift of leadership? The person who comes from a long line of leaders, or the person that was just born off under a carpenter or such? And then, you can't say that post-existance intelligence (the only kind to me) isn't real, that would be absurd, so the person that has a better chance of being born with such an ability is gaining more of that ability and a much higher rate that the other. So what does this really do? Support my claim.

Now, as for support against being born with such abilities. Authorities found a stagnant child that had no contact with others. She was 13 years old, and she had no skills outside of the norm (Blinking, eating, ***ting). Not even speech. Now all of the skills she did have where the ones that would be easily assumed from brute forcing some choices and seeing which one makes you most comfortable. What does this trace back to? My sense argument. However skills like leadership are nowhere to be found. They are to be learned post-birth. Like everything else.

gobak2 pokeymanz

They can be better, completely agreed. Anything is possible. However the chances and effort that is given for them to be better is of a huge ammount, and the more reliable thing to do is just use the person that has been trained to be a leader from birth, rather than the person that is unpopular.

That brings up the popularity card. Chances are you are going to know a celebrity better than that one dude that lives on 22nd street in Montana. The reason is because they have media totally whoring them out and letting you know what their secret motives may be. A person that just comes up can say horribly cliche things that will by the general publics vote even if they disagree with what they said. What I'm saying is it's easier to think logically on a leader that has been exploited than one that hasn't. So you won't be surprised with something terrible quite as much.

So even if you do find somebody that has more potential as a leader (which again, is too rare to consider) there is the trust thing going on that may later bite you in the ass. Reliable + Better chance of being a better leader? Yesplz

Military issues you say now? What would lead you to believe this? First off you're saying that the member of the royal family has less training in military issues. Which is just ... just horribly unsupported in the least. They are there when large scale military issues are going on, and because it is in the best interest to teach them how to handle such things that will result in the best answers in the end. The commoner is further away when things happen.

Srsly, wtf?

Well I've already countered these points, so I'll just repost mine so you can, maybe, counter them and not just fall back on this horribly flawed argument.

1.) Even if somebody is better, it's not enough to make a dramatic difference
2.) The person who is leader will become a great leader over time, not that they were ever a bad leader, just not great.

Yes, I agree. But the variable you're ignoring here is the person who would be inheriting. They would also have generally exceptional leadership abilities. So it's exceptional Vs. exceptional, not like it's average vs. exceptional. So it would most likely just provoke a debate on who was better, and even if the other person had better appeal, there's the trust and consistency cards that might even make the slightly worse one when it came to the appeal, the better leader overall.

The prince gets the leadership position and carries the community for a while without much problem, great. No fuss. Now lets say that random d00d 840572 came and did the same exact thing (maybe), do we have a problem? Yes, some people will still object to the inconsistency, and perhaps cause an uproar about unfair it is that the current leader got where they were out of chance.

Why does it have to be incest? This is completely based on the fact that the royal family rules supreme. It does not have to include incestial relationships to cause defects and the like. Marriage through law, will make whoever in question part of the Royal family ... through law.

This is worst case scenario, not a likely scenario. And besides, if the people are causing the mutiny for their best interest, then it will get _better_, right? The problems that sprout from naming a new successor through debate are not for the _better_, but for trying to keep going.

%::%

Oshi--

I had my response to that about half-done, then my silly browser lost it.

I'd redo it, but I'm way too lazy to bother when I only actually disagree with a few of your points. >_>

Though I'm curious as to your "no natural talent" thing. Why do you say that? Wouldn't that imply that all brains are identical?

No natural intelligence. And of course not all brains are identical, but that's mostly because not all brains go through the exact same thing. I actually can't tell you two brains that have gone through the exact same thing. Basically, though, I do think they are more of a husk than not.

Interesting. I could swear their growth was affected by genes, but given as I'm not one who really studies that sort of thing I can't say for sure.

Really? Because I was almost certain it was environment. As supported by:

How would leadership potential be calculated by genetics? That doesn't even make sense, mainly because leadership isn't a single trait. It is a conglomeration of many traits.

That's why it is easy to give an answer when a teacher asks what makes a good leader :P

Actually, Dez has a point here. >_>

But regarding brainz -- DH, you think if anyone else had been in that girl's position they would've turned out exactly the same? Presumably a different person would've had different parents, and unless my understanding of genes is massively, massively off (which is possible), that would alter the development of her body (and thus brain).

yeh agnst u

Yes, they would of turned out just about the same as her. They would not have any skills, rather just what they could tell from their senses. And again, if somebody was born without feeling, sight, hearing, smell, taste, or all that. Do you think it would be possible for them to even be aware of their existance?

It's not like genes actually alter what you learn. It's not like "Oh, now I know English randomly because it's in my genes", how much sense does that make? Another test was done on children to see what languages they would learn naturally, well, they didn't learn language at all.

Genes just determine the mental capacity of a person, but that capacity means nothing if people choose not to use it.

...not really against anyone, but whateva.

Re genes etc: I'm obviously not getting across what I'm thinking, as you seem to just be repeating yourself, so I'mma stop now.

omg then explain betur nub

Do genes affect the development of a person's brain?

Wtf, then you're not getting what we're saying.

Environment does, genes only "determine the mental capacity of a person".

Define mental capacity, then.

I'm guessing it's the ability to receive or contain things pertaining to the mind.

So you're saying that a variation in a person's ability to recieve or contain things pertaining to the mind won't affect said mind's development/abilities? >:/

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that somebody isn't born with the natural ability such as leadership already lain out for them. The other part, would be going along with what I was arguing in favour of hereditary succession in monarchies.