You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement.

I make no such claim, and I don't make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.

You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions.

There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn't voted on by a majority of the population.

Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.

Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.

You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.

There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn't vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).

Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.

Ah. So it wasn't me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it's you that claim to have the definitive answer.

For what it's worth, I agree power shouldn't be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It's all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they'd keep each other in check instead? I think it's quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Mostly the same reason why democracy worked for quite a while too. As long as people believe in a system and see the benefits to themselves as well, they can go quite a while with it.

In general I also think most people aren’t out to screw one another, no matter how much it may seem that way sometimes, so as long as that keeps for the monarchs in a majority of districts, the system could balance itself.

But yeah, I’m not going to say it’s perfect. Sooner or later it would collapse, and when it does my money would be on the same reason as yours.

So I think the main question is: would it be able to last longer than democracies can, especially in the face of mass media manipulation and other challenges. I can’t prove it, but I suspect it might have a decent shot, mostly because the monarchs would be more agile to respond against unforeseen threats.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

I think you'd get a better system looking at the roman republic than this crap. They had consuls who had the highest power, but it rotated every month between the two. Even they understood if you consolidate power it only leads to more consolidation. There's no way in hell this would be good for more than a generation or two.

[–] koper@feddit.nl 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That fact that you think "idealistic version of early US" is a compliment is very telling.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

Pray tell, what does it tell?