Cirdan: "Deogolwulf’s train of thought is this: Typically, in a monarchy, the person who gains power did not seek that power. In a non-monarchical republic or democracy, the ruler is usually someone who did. So, the hereditary monarchical method is likelier to produce a good ruler than the non-hereditary monarchical."
First off, I said I do not trust those who seek out power:
"In a non-hereditary republic or democracy, the governors must seek out power, and that for me is enough not to trust them an inch. In a hereditary monarchy, the ruler is invested with power which typically he did not seek. With the latter, there is always a fair chance of a good ruler; with the former, almost none at all."
With a non-random non-hereditary governor, that power must be sought out. With an hereditary, that is not necessarily so. The implicit premise is as you state: "All else being equal, a person who desires power is less likely to use it well (if he gets it) than one who doesn’t", which we will come to in a moment.
Cirdan: "It isn’t true that heredity ensures that the monarch is someone who didn’t seek power."
Indeed not, which is why I said "typically". But whereas those who seek power seek power, those born to it do not necessarily seek it.
In support of your belief that my aforementioned premise is false, you state:
"[T]ake two people, A with a desire for X, and B who is indifferent to X. Assume that all else is equal between them. Commonsense suggests that A is likeliest to be responsible in the use of X if his desire is satisfied."
Let X be alcohol . . . Ah, alcoholism. It is interesting to be informed that when the alcoholic is drunk - when his desire is satisfied - that he can be said to be - and have been - more responsible in its use than the teetotaler. I would have thought power was a more compelling example than alcohol, but then you appear not to think so. You have an interesting take on history (and commonsense), to say the least. I suspect, moreover, that those who seek out power, those who have had to fight and claw their way to it, are rarely satisfied, just as the self-made billionaire still desires more wealth. Perhaps it is like a drug.
"Suppose it is true that those who do not desire power are likeliest to be responsible in its use. So we need a method of choosing a ruler which maximises the chance of the ruler being indifferent to power. The most reasonable way of doing so is to choose a ruler at random from the class of all adult members of the population"
All things being equal, indeed so. But there are other matters that weigh in favour of monarchy, not least the distinct possiblity that the monarch has been trained from an early age in the responsible use of it.
a879a4 1ab0ad4276
Commenting by HaloScan
