On Truth and Monarchy
I believe truth to be objective. There are some who claim all truth is subjective. Is that not an objective claim? The measure of truth is not opinions, but the measure of opinions is the truth.
One can reject or uphold truth, but the fact it is indeed truth remains unchanged. One man can rightly recognise truth and the rest of the world can proclaim him a fool. Who is in the right? The one man, of course. My point is truth is not a matter determined by vote. The majority can be gravely wrong and the minority can be quite right; the reverse is also true.
In monarchy, one's time is not wasted trying to win debates. In real life, people are quite stubborn and will not likely be swayed even by impeccable logic. In my ideal implementation of monarchy, the monarch would occupy himself with discovering the truth and crafting policies grounded therein.
At the root of more representative forms of government is compromise. Even if one politician happens to discover the truth of the matter and proposes appropriate legislation, he will have to market it to many others. In the process, the legislation will undergo change to make it more palatable to an often biased, faction-ridden body.
Compromise ultimately dilutes the impact of truth. Do not misunderstand me; compromise has its rightful place in unessential matters unrelated to matters of truth.
Since truth is not determined by the majority, why should laws and policies be determined by the results of a popular vote, whether it be direct or through representatives?