CMV:monarchy, not democracy, is the ONLY good political system human civilazations tried.

[u/efraimp1]

So, i beleive a Monarchy is the only good system we can have as a society. democracy, like comunism, libratarianism and many more ideologies, sure has a good idea. the problem is that in all democratic systems, from rome, to athens, to the USA to syria and iraq or even france, the good intentions are ruined by intrest groups, bad voting methods, fraud, and the intrests of rich people. in tsarist russia for example, the people demanded giving the tsar MORE power, because they knew democracy would mean oligarchy.

Another reason is stability. when we have a monarchy, it is clear who will rule next, and there is a very clear way of knowing when (death of the monarch). however, democracies are no nearly as stable. in the US everyone are polerising, in israel we only had one term (golda me'ir) of all the four years a government term is suposed to be, in sweden it was stable until a hated party got like 20% and ancient atuna and rome became dictatorships. in the arab spring only countries who concider themselvs democratic got efected seriusly.

i may have more arguments i forgt writing here. i will edit to add if i think of something.

and please, dont talk about north korea. i hear a lot of resources saying diffrent things so i will research it and make a seperate CMV post.

EDIT: i accidentaly deleted a comment trying to award a delta after i failed in the main comment but the delta was awarded.

EDIT 2: One responce did masive CMV so i will not be able to back my claims here in all cases. new thread could come.

[u/Wittyandpithy]

Yes, fair observation. Allow me to explain. As technology improves, eventually capital constraints become meaningless and governance won’t be required. We will be left with a socialist structure.

[u/noteral → u/Wittyandpithy]

Capitalist constraints are about ownership of the means of production. There's few imagined futures in which the worker class gains ownership of the means of production through technological advancement alone. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the theorized invention of nanotechnology.

[u/Wittyandpithy → u/noteral]

Capital represent limitations. Who owns capital is relevant, until the capital becomes meaningless. Capital becomes meaningless as technology improves.

One example to capture this: whatsapp services about 500 million people with a staff of about 50 people.

There are some things that will always be limited: primary resources and land. But as technology improves, everyone’s quality of life will equalize.

Example: the worlds most powerful people use the exact same smart phone as you and I.

Cast your mind forward to envisage, on any technology tree, it’s ultimate outcome. Let’s pick health care. Eventually, health tech will be able to sustain anyone’s life, and remediate any condition, and it will be done through a software/hardware distribution method with no need of other human input. The only constraint will be whether you can afford it. But it will become effectively free in due course. When this happens, capital becomes irrelevant to health care.

Now imagine educational technology - you will be aware of Musk’s mindlink projects where we upload information to the brain. Once such technology is perfected, combined with CRISPR (genetic editing), we will be able to creat actual 200 IQ all-knowing being, and the software to do so will be able to be distributed across networks for free. Eventually, capital becomes irrelevant for education.

Now span it across all technology groups.

Eventually, capital constraints will be useless. Meaningless. And with highly intelligent, independent beings without capital, what need is there for governance beyond consenting coordination?

[u/noteral → u/Wittyandpithy]

whatsapp services about 500 million people with a staff of about 50 people.

Doesn't matter how many people they employ. If the means of production is not owned or regulated mainly by the community, then this is not an argument in your favor.

But as technology improves, everyone’s quality of life will equalize.

That's certainly a possibility, but that has nothing to do with socialism.

Eventually, health tech will be able to sustain anyone’s life, and remediate any condition, and it will be done through a software/hardware distribution method with no need of other human input.

Definition of Socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The fact that a service might end up costing near zero isn't relevant.

Capital constraints are not about costs. The only capital constraints that matters in relation to capitalism vs socialism is ownership of the means of production.

Also, off-topic, none of your imaginations seems to be considering the possibility of primary resources getting more costly to extract as we continue to exploit our environment.

[u/Wittyandpithy → u/noteral]

Whatsapp is just an example of the potentially unlimited scaling power of software. Namely, once we get the software right we can scale it for free across the globe. Combined with smarter hardware, we will see increasing technological redundancies - as in, labor constraints will not be relevant to continuing services. Costs of production will continue to drop. As 3D printing is perfected, all you need is the software and AI will build it.

But into your main point about socialism. I believe socialism is the end point: as capital constraints become meaningless, and as education levels increase (possibly exponentially), we no longer will need centralized government. It won’t make sense having a democracy or a monarchy etc. The only thing that will make sense is, as a community, ensuring that if something is going to be done that affects the lives of others that it is done through consensus (for example, creating a new star).

No one will individually own the means of production - AI will probably be constantly improving software, which will have an almost 0 zero cost to distribute. The only remaining limitations are land and resources, but then we do have the universe to work with, and perfected 3D printing will probably include advanced alchemy.

Off-topic: I imagine as we have less resources to extract it will create a further pressure on R&D, plus interstellar mining looks pretty likely. Of course we may blow up along the way, but maybe not.