Shudda, wudda, cudda, bokonist. (ie, counterfactuals and supposition are a poor-man's way to argue history) What if my grandmother had wheels? Would that make her a trolley?

I care about these issues for two reasons. 1) simply for the pleasure of understanding how the world works. To me, understanding whether democracy seceded monarchy because a) democracy provided better quality of governance or b) because it was a lab experiment that went out of control, is an interesting question.

The second reason is that it can inform decision making. I do not work in government now. But I have in the past, and perhaps will again some day. I have friends who work in the CIA and the State Department. Knowing whether democracy works or not is an important question.

Attempts at establishing democracy in Germany, Zimbabwe and Iraq happened because of the specific decisions of people in working in the American government. Had their brains been filled less with the textbook myths about democracy, and had they studied actual transitions to democracy much more closely, they may have made different decisions and averted much human suffering.

That old representative republic idea still makes the most sense. If you want to add a layer of quasi-permanent public service bureaucracy, on it fine, but we're just splitting hairs at that point.

Actually, adding a quasi-permanent public service bureaucracy dramatically changes the nature of the government. Despite operating under the same Constitution, the government of the United States in 2009 bears very little resemblance to the government of 1850. Read the Power Broker and compare the government of New York pre-civil service to post-civil service.

Where we cross paths is the idea of a stratified society in which a ruling class assumes those roles for life due to blood relations or other unearned criteria.

By aristocracy I meant "rule by the best". Basically, any system that cares about the quality of the voters and not just one person one vote counts as an aristocracy. For example, the original U.S. political system, with property qualifications to vote and President elected by a college of electors was basically Aristocratic in design and intent. Before the 1887 Reform Act, Britain was basically an Aristocracy. Another good example is Venice: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect...

Another interesting idea is Formalism: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect...

As for monarchy, you jest with me, but Gibbon already anticipated your jesting 200 years ago and wrote a response:

--------------------------

OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people.

----------------------------------------

In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).

You're trying apply some scale of competence where in reality none exists, at least as far as the governed care.

There are many widely acceptable components of good government: provides safety and order, allows relative freedom of action, grows the economy, is not an oppressive police state, stays out of foolish wars, etc.

Sure, some aspects of good governance are debatable ( should drugs be legalized or not, should we have public schools, etc.). But you don't need a perfect definition of good government to have a generally useful definition. If I asked you whether you'd rather be ruled by Stalin and the Bolsheviks, or by Teddy Roosevelt, I don't think you'd have much trouble answering.

BTW, World War I is a great example of how the old aristocratic systems a) got the world into a war, and b) completely started breaking down once the people began finding their own voice.

You need a new provider of history. Britain, Germany and France all had Parliaments elected by universal manhood suffrage that voted for the war ( The Russian Duma also voted for the war, although it had more limited suffrage).

The problem with democracy is that jingoism is an extremely effective way to win votes. I mean, are you aware of the existence of Fox News? Of the Iraq War? Metternich spent his career as a minister in the 1840's trying to prevent German democracy, because he believed it would lead to German nationalism and jingoism. Was he right or was he right?

If you look at European history, you see that after the various universal suffrage acts (1870 in Germany, 1887 in Britain) there is a cycle of increasing jingoism as politicians try and out do each other winning votes. And not just jingoism, also anti-semitism. The anti-semitism of 1930's Germany was nothing like the anti-semitism of 1850's. It was the result of decades of competing demagoguing politicians. It took complete military defeat, a decade of military rule, and the notorious JCS 1067 to eliminate the poison.

In 1870 the monarchs of Germany and France got in a stupid war. They fought a few battles, some territory was exchanged, and life went on.

But in 1914 entire nations were out for blood. Mobs filled the streets jeering on the war, thirsting for the blood of others. And once the war started the politicians and people of Britain refused to negotiate terms with the Germans. For them, it was the equivalent of "letting the terrorists win." Unlike the war of 1870, it dragged on for four bloody years.

For an example of the mood of the time, try this quote by Stefan Zweig. He lived in Austria during these years of tumult, and I highly recommend his book "The World of Yesterday" Shortly before the war he was vactioning in provincial France. He reports:

-----------------------------------------

It was a small suburban cinema, utterly different from the modern palaces of chromium and glass; a sparsely fitted hall, filled with humble folk, workers, soldiers, market women -- the plain people -- who chatted comfortably. The third picture was "Kaiser Wilhelm visitis the Emperor Francis Joseph in Vienna." The train came on the screen, the first coach, the second, and the third. The door of the compartment was thrown open, and out stepped William II in the uniform of an Austrian General, his moustache curled stiffly upwards. The moment he appeared in the picture, a spontaneous wild whistling and stamping of feet began in the dark hall. Everybody yelled and whistled, men, women, and children, as if they had been personally instuled. The good natured people of Tours, who knew no more about the world and politics than what they had read in their newspapers, had gone mad for an instant. I was frightened. I was frightened to the depths of my heart. For I sensed how deeply the poison of the propaganda of hate must have advanced through the years, when even here in a small provincial city the simple citizens and soldiers had been so greatly incited agaisnte the Kaiser and against Germany that a passing picture on the screen could produce such a demonstration.

-----------------------------------------------

If we preface our PM decision with "and we're going to vote once a month to keep or rotate the job" then we have a way to respond to new eventualities.

I'm quite sure this system could work quite well for some teams. But what happens when the team grows? What happens when you have 80 people? Does the newest hire in QA have the same vote over the direction of the company as the Founder-CEO? The problem with democracy is that it does not scale.

No software company of any size uses one person-one vote democracy to manage the company. There is a reason for this. I would like to see experiments where governments adopted joint-stock corporation form of management.