= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RolfAndreassen comments on Orwell and fictional evidence for dictatorship stability - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (79)
ETA: sorry, mixed you up with other commenters. Here's what's left of my response:
The original claim was that dictatorships are less stable than monarchies. Your definition of the difference between the two might say that this is because monarchies have stable inheritance rules, while in dictatorships, which don't, a new dictator is often weak at first. This can topple or amend the dictatorship.
This claim (which you didn't make) doesn't convince me, to which I responded (after correcting my comments) in my reply here.
Yes, I was only responding to the question about the difference - I wasn't making any claims about the stability. It is not really clear that monarchies last all that long; if you look at England, they tend to get a new dynasty every two hundred years, or whatever, usually after a civil war. It's not obvious that you want to consider this a continuation of the monarchy; you might just as well consider it a new one.
Few dictatorships last that long.
Could you please name some that did?
The Roman Empire should probably be classified as a dictatorship, but it didn't have 200 years without succession violence. The "Five Good Empires" period lasted 100 years, though.
Maybe the Vatican should count as a dictatorship. It has had succession violence, but probably less often than England. But maybe it is too decentralized to count.
Can't think of any, in fact (which is my point). However, there may be one or two that don't spring to mind.