How could you answer sensibly without defining the size and sophistication of the "kingdom" to be run?

Is it a group of 100 or a billion? Is it stone age, nomadic, agrarian, age of empires, or a modern technocratic state?

Monarchies must have arisen as a suitable social structure at some stage in history. Why did they work in that context, and what context are we now discussing them in?

Excellent questions and I will do my best to answer all of them. I would like to state in the first place that I have no idea why the economic or demographic information would be relevant. I know of no monarchy that was formed in response to these calculations. The idea that kings and queens must've been a "suitable" part of some social structures at some stage in history relies on some standardized conception of "suitability" that we mutually endorse and adopt as a part of our own universally applicable philosophical and linguistic categories. You also asked me the question "Why did they work in the past?" which assumes that they did "work" which could be interpreted in a number of different ways so I have no clue how to answer it. I want to apologize if my replies do not satisfy you. I think you asked a lot of really good questions and my answers might not be as good as they should be.

The idea that kings and queens must've been a "suitable" part of some social structures at some stage in history relies on some standardized conception of "suitability" that we mutually endorse and adopt as a part of our own universally applicable philosophical and linguistic categories. — Average

What is a king if he has no court, no lords and ladies, no knights or servants? There has to be some kind of hierarchy in place otherwise a king lacks all the usual distinctions that would make him any different.

So scale does matter. To be a king you would at least need a population where all the average folk know who the king is by name, but the king probably doesn't know many of his subjects by name.

This kind of information asymmetry is essential to there being the kind of tight hierarchical order we would be talking about.

And monarchies would work in the sense that they are effective and last. As a way to distribute power in a society, they would allow a kingdom to coherently regulate itself while also coherently reacting against other kingdoms, or groupings of less social order.

We would expect likewise that the monarchies would start to fail when having to deal with new and more effective varieties of social organisation. So there would be a time when they stop working as something better has come along.

We would expect likewise that the monarchies would start to fail when having to deal with new and more effective varieties of social organisation. So there would be a time when they stop working as something better has come along. — apokrisis

Couldn't a government experience instability as a result of alternative factor such as plague and natural disasters? I think it is a bit unorthodox for someone to automatically conclude that the only explanation for failure and malfunction in a social system is some form of obsolescence. Correlation and causation are notorious for the ease with which they can be incorrectly identified.

What is a king if he has no court, no lords and ladies, no knights or servants? There has to be some kind of hierarchy in place otherwise a king lacks all the usual distinctions that would make him any different. — apokrisis

I think that what you are referring to would constitute a government in exile which could at least theoretically regain or establish its hegemonic position as the dominant force in society as well as on the international stage of warfare and geopolitics. I'm not sure that the list of things you mentioned are as decisive as you seem to think but I am also open to the idea and I could be wrong so feel free to try and sway me. On the whole though I would say what I have said already which is that correlation and causation are actually very relevant. The things you mentioned may indeed be correlated with regnal power but may not be causally connected in the sense that they are what gives a king his essence.

Couldn't a government experience instability as a result of alternative factor such as plague and natural disasters? — Average

Sure. It would have to be resilient in the face of perturbations of all kinds. That is part of the design criteria.

I think it is a bit unorthodox for someone to automatically conclude that the only explanation for failure and malfunction in a social system is some form of obsolescence. — Average

Theories of self-organising systems would point out that this is a coin with two sides. The better adapted an organism is to its niche, the more brittle it becomes if the world changes in ways that weren’t anticipated.

So obsolescence can be revealed - as when an asteroid hits the planet and makes it suddenly too cold to be a dinosaur anymore. But up until that moment, the dinosaurs were wonderfully fine tuned to their circumstances.

The things you mentioned may indeed be correlated with regnal power but may not be causally connected in the sense that they are what gives a king his essence. — Average

It’s your argument. So you would have to define what is essential, what is accidental, to being a king.

I’m just pointing out where I would start. Which is defining what counts as his “kingdom”.

Sure. It would have to be resilient in the face of perturbations of all kinds. That is part of the design criteria. — apokrisis

This seems like a strange yardstick and I'm not sure what it is supposed to measure. If it is the "coherence" of foreign and domestic policies I'm not sure if there ever was a social system that lived up to such a high standard of excellence. Obviously it would be a lovely ideal to try and strive towards but it might not be the most useful tool in terms of day to day decisions. As you stated even the mighty T Rex went extinct but does this mean that it was less majestic as a result of it's mortality? Immortality might be nice in theory but in practice we are probably stuck with the inevitable end in the form of death. I don't want to ramble too much so I apologize if some of this is tangential or seems like irrelevant nonsense.

I’m just pointing out where I would start. Which is defining what counts as his “kingdom”. — apokrisis

I'm no pro so in other words I'm just an amateur arm chair philosopher indulging in pure speculation. I confess that I have no idea where I would even begin attempting to describe what counts as a realm in terms that could qualify as a definition. One man's trash is another man's treasure as they say so I don't know if your method is my cup of tea but I think I can appreciate your insistence on definition.

I don't want to ramble too much so I apologize if some of this is tangential or seems like irrelevant nonsense. — Average

What did I say that you are now reacting against? This is how you might identify the beliefs which ground your own views here.

So I argue from a viewpoint that social structures are pragmatic. They allow communities to organise in ways that are resilient enough to last a long time.

A king-kingdom setup is functional for some good reason. History has already shown that. But now we need to sharpen our understanding in terms of why it might be sub-optimal in other eras outside where it once dominated.

I’m not sure what your paradigm of “political excellence” might involve. You would have to state your model here. But are you looking at it from the point of view of a modern democracy which is “obviously better” as who wants to have to obey some kind of absolute and hereditary autocrat?

One man's trash is another man's treasure as they say so I don't know if your method is my cup of tea but I think I can appreciate your insistence on definition. — Average

You seem interested in this as an exercise in doing philosophy. This is what critical thinking looks like.

Start by digging into what you already believe to be true so you can contrast it with alternatives to that way of understanding things.

I am asking what does it even mean to be a king except that you have a kingdom. So define kingdom and you make clear what it is you think of as a king. After that, we can compare and contrast.

:up:

I am asking what does it even mean to be a king except that you have a kingdom. — apokrisis

Couldn't you just as easily ask what does it mean to be a kingdom except that it has a king? I mean it seems kind of strange to define something in terms that are etymologically linked to it in the first place. That would basically be a circular definition. At least that's what I think.

History has already shown that. — apokrisis

What about historical revisionism? How do you know that your understanding or interpretation of history is actually factually grounded. Even if it is why am I under any obligation to accept it as such without doing my own due diligence? Simply asserting things like this doesn't seem that persuasive.

That would basically be a circular definition. At least that's what I think. — Average

Give it a go then. Define a king without mentioning kingdoms. Define kingdoms without mentioning kings.

If you can do it, your approach works. But you have yet to do it.

How do you know that your understanding or interpretation of history is actually factually grounded. Even if it is why am I under any obligation to accept it as such without doing my own due diligence? Simply asserting things like this doesn't seem that persuasive. — Average

It’s your argument. And you have provided no facts to ground your position. You haven’t even defined a position properly. We don’t even know what would count as facts for or against.

That ain’t persuasive, is it? In fact it doesn’t even yet reach the threshold of attempting to persuade.

You are sat at the chess board but haven’t even made the first move yet.

It’s your argument. And you have provided no facts to ground your position. — apokrisis

What position? I don't remember making any kind of deductive or inductive argument. Maybe I did but I definitely don't remember it. Maybe I haven't made the first move because it's your turn. All I did was ask for other people to share their opinions in an attempt to resolve some of my philosophical puzzles.

You asked what makes a government legitimate. You put forward the more specific example of a kingdom. You seemed to agree that notions of morality don’t feel like a strong axiomatic basis.

Now do you really just want opinions or a rational critique of how to take this further?

I posited pragmatism as an alternative axiomatic basis. I said it is factual that monarchies persisted as historically successful forms of social organisation.

So was this because they were moral or because they were pragmatic?

Did you have some other axiomatic basis to discuss or something?

Do you have facts that would count against my pragmatic approach?

Could you define pragmatic and pragmatism in simple easy to understand words so that there is no confusion? I'm not asking because of some passive aggressive sarcasm but because I actually do need some clarification. Are you saying that the long endurance of some form of instituted practice is evidence of it being "pragmatic"? What basis is there to conclude that this is the case?

Now do you really just want opinions or a rational critique of how to take this further? — apokrisis

Honestly I think that both could be beneficial.

In its loosest sense, pragmatism simply says something works. A structure or form of organisation does the job. At a minimum, it is order that has the means to persist. But you can then start building higher goals on top of that foundation.

As in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#:~:text=There%20are%20five%20levels%20in,esteem%2C%20and%20self%2Dactualization.

So any form of human social organisation starts with delivering food and shelter. It then can start to deliver belonging and esteem. Self-actualisation can then be regarded as taking things to another level. Or at least that seems to be a positive reason why liberal democracy claims to be better than what came before.

A monarchy at least could tick off the first four levels for enough of the time to be a form of political order that kept rebuilding itself. That would give it a pragmatic basis for assessing it.

I think we finally have a firm foundation to build upon.

So any form of human social organisation starts with delivering food and shelter. It then can start to deliver belonging and esteem. — apokrisis

This reminds me of marxism and it's theory of the base and superstructure. Even though I myself am not a marxist I can understand it's appeal to different people. However I need to insist on the reality that priorities differ from person to person. One could say that man shall not live by bread alone. There are other values besides material ones and one could invert the formula and start with the latter part of this list. After achieving these things we could then go on to construct the so called essentials of housing and food production. What I'm trying to say is that the simple fact of a famine killing large parts of a nation's population doesn't automatically mean its government is failing in terms of its most important mission. For example the opposite extreme could be overconsumption or overproduction and obesity.

What I'm trying to say is that the simple fact of a famine killing large parts of a nation's population doesn't automatically mean its government is failing in terms of its most important mission. For example the opposite extreme could be overconsumption or overproduction and obesity. — Average

Well both are bad. But famine is worse. In reality, no one is forcing your to over-eat, especially if you voted for a self-actualising democracy that makes it your own informed choice.

So famine is a much more basic failure. And what you would be aiming for is a political system that could maximise population health over time.

Can you tell me what that looks like. Maybe more like Japan and the Mediterranean than Anglo-sphere customs and regulations?

I don't have data. It is a capital mistake to theorize without data. — Sherlock Holmes

Well both are bad. But famine is worse. In reality, no one is forcing your to over-eat, especially if you voted for a self-actualising democracy that makes it your own informed choice. — apokrisis

I don't see how suicide is somehow better than death by natural causes or natural disasters. There is such a thing as advertising and propaganda designed to induce emotional reactions and or emotional eating and other unhealthy habits. Most of the time this stuff is designed to circumvent the intellect and appeal to that which is furthest from the rational side of human nature. I will cite Edward Bernays and his theories of democratic dictatorship in human society. All of this is implicitly applicable to the political side of human life like voting.

But famines can kill millions who didn’t want to die. Suicide is a minority pastime. So that’s a false equivalence to draw.

So are you saying that if these hypothetical or literal millions wanted to die than it would've been acceptable?

How is that a helpful question? If this was what folk wanted, then you are rejecting Maslow’s hierarchy. You would now have to argue that bit of your argument first.

I need a little bit of clarification before I proceed. What bit are you referring to exactly? You didn't exactly quote me and or make it explicit.

So are you saying that if these hypothetical or literal millions wanted to die — Average

This bit. Something I hadn’t said, but which you now claim as a fact worth considering.

How is a question an argument? Don't you need statements that are logically related to one another and derived from each other? I know that you never said those words which is why I asked the question.

So you knew I didn’t say that but then asked if I said it?

Are you just wanting to play games? Or do you have an interest in the OP you posed?

I asked if that was the correct interpretation of the words you used but you chose to interpret it in another way. Did I ever say that I wanted to play games? Did I ever say that I didn't have an interest in the OP I posed? I doubt that you enjoy being on the other end of it because it's bitter medicine that you prescribe.

But famines can kill millions who didn’t want to die. Suicide is a minority pastime. So that’s a false equivalence to draw. — apokrisis

How does f cause g?

What makes a government legitimate or illegitimate? — Average

I was thinking about this, and what rights a population might have to overthrow the government if it were considered illegitimate. This is what I sketched out. It's my first thoughts, but this is what I came up with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

I was thinking about this, and what rights a population might have to overthrow the government if it were considered illegitimate. — Hanover

Considered illegitimate by who? If you are suggesting that the consent of the governed and the opinion of the many is somehow the basis of legitimate government then I am forced to cite Edward Bernays and his theories of democratic dictatorship. The electorate, the citizens, or the subjects are easily manipulated by clever and crafty men and women covertly subverting the intellect.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights — Hanover

Is this the deistic formulation of creation which would mean mechanistic materialism? It can easily be asserted that the idea that the truth is self evident is self evidently false. It may sound like a contradiction but how can you refute it if no argument is even provided to support the conclusion? Anything that can be asserted without an argument can be rejected without an argument just as easily. Self evident principles and conclusions seem like they are probably just lazy philosophy.

What makes a government legitimate or illegitimate? Is it possible for a government to be legit or are all states sus? The entire discussion revolving around legitimacy seems to involve a lot of moral dogma — Average

The problem is in your question. "legitimate" is related to "legislation" and so your question addresses the legitimacy of the legitimising process. Transferring the meaning to reason and philosophy does not help; because then you are questioning the logic of logic...

Self evident principles and conclusions seem like they are probably just lazy philosophy. — Average

...like this. Reason can help to keep our thinking straight in the sense that it is truth preserving. This means that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion of a reasoned argument. but without 'self-evident' principles as premises, reason has nothing to operate on.

Thus you have an unassailable rational position of nihilism and ignorance. The rest of us have no other recourse but to point out the vicious circle and move on to organise the world as best we can on fallible but congenial claims we take as 'self-evident.' When we get in a total mess, we might go back and see if another principle will help us better. "Some men are God's appointed rulers." used to be held self-evident, but there were problems...