oh, no, I'm not drawing the causal arrow in that direction! It's more like "most governments are incapable, have terrible incentives, and are staffed with incompetents, so it's hardly surprising that that's true of this one too". https://twitter.com/Hopeful_Saudade/status/1258064440404185089 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
4/ "stable" doesn't mean "good" Living in mud, crapping behind bushes, and planting seeds one at a time with a pointed stick was also a very "stable" form.https://twitter.com/oisindayo/status/1258138023759433728 …
Show this thread - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not even close to true. Osman monarchy was awful and lasted centuries. Late Roman empire was awful. French monarchy had some long times of shitty kings.
-
Actually it's even worse when you think about it: the thing about monarchy is that no matter how bad is the current, previous or next boss, it's the same strain of rulers who's in charge. That's litterally the fucking point of monarchy to ensure continuity over skills.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The former. Monarchy has proven to be the most stable form of governance, lasting since the start of recorded human history until only very recently, and the sort of mass mobilisation and conscription that saw the world reduced to ashes in the 20th century has its roots in 1789.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.