your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people

You being good for people is secondary, less important parameter.

effective at the tasks of governance

I guess if your country managed to survive for 74 years before collapsing on its own, then we can conclude you were not effective.

Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest

This is not my argument. But if Ford really is the oldest car manufacturer, then it definetly scores them some points as a car manufacturer. It doesn’t mean their cars are good.

but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.

1. Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship

2. Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.

You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.

Unrelated to the discussion, ad hominem.

I thought he said that Trump was sent by God or something.

If the Roman Republic, isn’t democratic enough for you, then, as I said, we could talk about the Athenians

Athenian democracy existed for less than 200 years and Athens were a village with 10k population. Might as well just talk about US so that democracy doesn’t embarass itself.

Or perhaps the Iroquois League.

What about it?

The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts

Yep.

What are you talking about, and send some links to back up whatever that is.

What’s not clear to you? You said it yourself: “>The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts”. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. What’s better, your current government, or or new ideal government that has perfect conditions for its citizens, but only lasts for 1 day and then the state collapses?

Roman Republic exited for 500 years before Roman empire. They were the first to implement the division of government into 3 branches, so I guess they weren’t a dictatorship? They actually invented the word “dictator”. It was temporary authority given to the head of the state at the times of emergency. So, most of the time Rome wasn’t a dictatorship. And it wasn’t a democracy.

Will you provide any evidence for your claims? It’s not me who’s claiming Roman republic was a democratic state (lol). “popular assemblies composed of common citizens” lol, look up centuriate assembly and see how many votes common sitizens had in it (spoiler: 0.5% of total votes).

Was Roman Republic a dictatorship?

I mean like Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, etc. By monarchies I mean all monarchies, but since you’re comparing the quality of life of today’s democracies it only makes sense to compare it to today’s monarchies.

😨 …

Fuck pensions btw, pensions are communist shit and should be abolished.

They fit almost all of the criteria of communism. If Democratic Kampuchea haven’t achieved communism, it was very-very close to it. Much closer than any other country. If you disagree, please provide something substantial. What are the necessary criteria for communism that Democratic Kampuchea didn’t fit?

Well, seems like your deductive capabilities are subpar. Don’t try suggesting thing again, you suck at it.

Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.

I live in a post soviet country so I experience the impact of socialism to this very day. It’s appalling.

Roman Republic wasn’t a democracy. It was ruled by aristocratic families. Lol.

It’s the main criterion. If the system doesn’t last, then it’s shit regardless of what it is. The main purpose of the government (and any organization, for that matter) is to exist for as long as possible, everything else comes second. I wonder what other criteria do you have in mind?

And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies?

Looking at today’s monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today’s democracies.

How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy?

The same?

How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy?

The same average amount of suffering.

Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better.

It’s obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can’t even sustain itself for long enough, then it’s not even worth considering it.

It doesn’t mean I want to live under one

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The Khmer Rouge was never socialist

They weren’t socialist bc they took a step past socialism and into communism directly. They abolished money, replaced army with armed militia, achieved direct democracy, abolished institution of family, replaced farmers with agrarian proletariat, achieved 100% public housing. USSR is a capitalist shithole compared to Democratic Kampuchea.

I’m not a communist bro.

Dunno. Dropping friends due to politics seems totally cringe. Civilized people should have the option of “let’s not talk about politics” instead of breaking up relationships.

Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.