RJ and politics?

[Southpaw89]

does anyone know if RJ if hinted at what political party he supported? I know it's not very appropriate to just ask someone that question unless they bring it up first but I was just wondering if he ever mentioned it? I know in his interviews he said he was a monarchist but I think he was just being dodgy. Now please don't answer with a political rant of your own because I'm sure there are many of us here who have our own opinions but please keep this strictly to the question haha

[thisguy]

does anyone know if RJ if hinted at what political party he supported? I know it's not very appropriate to just ask someone that question unless they bring it up first but I was just wondering if he ever mentioned it? I know in his interviews he said he was a monarchist but I think he was just being dodgy. Now please don't answer with a political rant of your own because I'm sure there are many of us here who have our own opinions but please keep this strictly to the question haha

I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if RJ meant what he said. Socrates wasn't a fan of Democracy but liked the idea of a benevolent monarch.

 

That said, I have no idea. ;)

[Alric]

* Backs away slowly from the thread...

 

[jsbrads]

I guess if y'all brought it up... we would be better off with a benevolent monarch that looks on our tax money as his assets and uses them sparingly, merely a few billion a year on his needs, than politicians who spend our money like drunk sailors on friday night at the rate of trillions per year

[TristanWebb]

If you could guarantee that a monarch would stay benevolent then yes, it is probably the best way to go. The checks and balances are there for when the monarch turns to evil.

[Vardar]

If you could guarantee that a monarch would stay benevolent then yes, it is probably the best way to go. The checks and balances are there for when the monarch turns to evil.

 

This. Dictatorships are the best system of government. The problem, like so many things in this world, isn't the system, but the people involved in the system. if you could get an uncorrupted person who would stay uncorrupted, it would work great.

[Agitel]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

[Morsker]

I've never heard of any political statements from him.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if he thought poorly of the way political parties polarize issues, since we know he thought poorly of organized religion and it's not dissimilar. But I'm guessing.

[thisguy]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

what does Martin have to say?

[Vardar]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

 

 

Every system is easily corruptable. However on the same note, it's easier to avoid corruption with 1 person vs a lot. (In theory). My argument is, on paper, the best system is 1 person who has the ability to make the final decisions in a timely manner and has the best interests of everyone at heart. We have sayings like "Too many cooksin the kitchen ruin it" or "too many chiefs, not enough indians" (Horribly racist lol) however when it comes to government, we just ignore it.

[thisguy]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

 

 

Every system is easily corruptable. However on the same note, it's easier to avoid corruption with 1 person vs a lot. (In theory). My argument is, on paper, the best system is 1 person who has the ability to make the final decisions in a timely manner and has the best interests of everyone at heart. We have sayings like "Too many cooksin the kitchen ruin it" or "too many chiefs, not enough indians" (Horribly racist lol) however when it comes to government, we just ignore it.

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

[Southpaw89]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

[thisguy]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

[SuperFade]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

 

 

Every system is easily corruptable. However on the same note, it's easier to avoid corruption with 1 person vs a lot. (In theory). My argument is, on paper, the best system is 1 person who has the ability to make the final decisions in a timely manner and has the best interests of everyone at heart. We have sayings like "Too many cooksin the kitchen ruin it" or "too many chiefs, not enough indians" (Horribly racist lol) however when it comes to government, we just ignore it.

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

 

This, this and this. People are stupid and 99% have no clue how to properly run a country, yet still demand a say in politics. Democracy isn't more progressive or inherently 'better' than monarchies or other autocratic governmental systems, despite how desperate modern society is to place it on a pedestal and worship it.

[thisguy]

If a system is easily corruptible and subject to failing on a badly conceived whim I'm not sure I could call it the best system of government. That's not even getting into the idea of the importance of a popular mandate and all the ethical and moral issues.

 

Back to RJ. Did he say anything else? George RR Martin (author of A Song of Ice and Fire) hasn't kept his politics hidden.

 

 

Every system is easily corruptable. However on the same note, it's easier to avoid corruption with 1 person vs a lot. (In theory). My argument is, on paper, the best system is 1 person who has the ability to make the final decisions in a timely manner and has the best interests of everyone at heart. We have sayings like "Too many cooksin the kitchen ruin it" or "too many chiefs, not enough indians" (Horribly racist lol) however when it comes to government, we just ignore it.

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

 

This, this and this. People are stupid and 99% have no clue how to properly run a country, yet still demand a say in politics. Democracy isn't more progressive or inherently 'better' than monarchies or other autocratic governmental systems, despite how desperate modern society is to place it on a pedestal and worship it.

It really depends. I will say this - America wants to Democratize the world but many of us probably would not like what the people of other countries chose to do with their "say".

As for people being stupid, the older I get the more I agree with you.

[Morsker]

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

[thisguy]

Socrates' problem with Democracy was that the average person didn't know enough to make an informed judgment. All citizens should understand economics, war, how to build and maintain roads, etc otherwise the system won't work. I agree, all systems are corruptible, we're human.

Socrates probably wouldn't call our modern system democracy at all though. He might complain about it (who knows), but he wouldn't use the same complaint. We elect officials, and have regulatory bodies that hire specialists. Socrates was complaining about deciding every single thing by vote, or selecting officials by lot.

Yes, they had direct democracy, we have the republic which is representative democracy. But, the point still stands. If you don't know about economics, war, roads, health care, etc - how can you choose the right person to represent you. And, looking at many politicians, they don't know about a lot of this stuff themselves.

[Colin al'Caar]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

[thisguy]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

Why is he a woman hater?

[Colin al'Caar]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

Why is he a woman hater?

 

At the risk of appearing to hijack the thread...not my intention...I just haven't liked how he treats his women characters....anyway, I believe the original question was regarding RJ's politics....perhaps his response of being "Monarchist" was simply because he was consumed with the research and writing of WoT....he may have just shut out much of the "real world" as a result.

[Southpaw89]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

[Southpaw89]

yeah and RJ prob didn't wanna give his view so he said Monarchist as well haha gotta love it :D

[Thrasymachus]

The appropriateness of various forms of government depends to a great extent on the economic and cultural conditions of the society to be governed. Very poor societies, those that lack enough wealth or have a very unequal distribution of wealth such that few people have enough time to keep themselves educated about matters of state, are poor candidates for democracy or democratic republics. Societies that have a "cultural imperative" directed externally to the society, such as a military, or who are driven to create and acquire material wealth above other social concerns are likewise poorly served by democracy. Very wealthy societies with complex economics and cultures are poorly served by monarchies or dictatorships, as no one individual, no matter how much of a genius and how moral (s)he may be, can master and competently judge everything about such a society. Societies whose cultural imperative is loose and internally directed, such as those motivated to eliminate poverty among those individuals that make it up, or to promote certain conceptions of "equal rights" among their members, are poorly served by oligarchies or plutarchies, all the more so when that society is wealthy and regardless of the overall distribution of wealth.

 

That said, democratic forms of government have one advantage the others do not, regardless of economic or cultural conditions. The people governed by a democratic form of government get the government they deserve, and everything bad the government does can be pinned directly back on the people in that society who tolerate it, whether they understand their complicity or not.

 

And don't read too much into Plato's supposed advocacy for dictatorship led by a "philosopher-king." Plato's Republic is not about government, it's about the organization of the human soul, in an attempt to answer the question of whether it's better to be just/good/virtuous and thought to be unjust/bad/immoral by everybody, or better to be bad and thought to be good by everybody. In other works, Plato has better things to say about democracies, especially in comparison to the corrupt oligarchies or tyrannies that ruled in neighboring city-states. Democracies are actually better at avoiding corruption than the other forms in general, because the most insidious form of corruption is not intentional, but corruption that creeps in unnoticed by those who are corrupted. It takes an outside perspective to recognize that kind of corruption, and democracy at least provides a voice for that perspective, even if that voice can be drowned out or ignored.

[Colin al'Caar]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

Hmmm....that wasn't intended to be an "anti-Republican" rant....is was intended as a GRRM rant....sorry to have confused you.

[Suttree]

GRRM has made it clear just how liberal he is which makes me furious. Not for being liberal but for going out and bashing those who aren't. I don't care what his beliefs are or what anyones beliefs are but it isn't his place as an author to go out and bash political issues publicly. Of course he can if he wants like he did but I don't respect him for it. I'm glad RJ kept his hidden. I really really respect him for that

 

I didn't know that about GRRM. Thanks.

 

I didn't know that either. I have more respect for him now than I did 30 seconds ago....it doesn't replace the fact that he's an overrated, woman-hating, undersexed, self-promoting windbag who doesn't know how to finish a story. sorry, rant over.

 

 

His anti-Republican rant wasn't even accurate and for someone who likes to show "all sides" to situations and people like he attempts to show in A Song of Ice and Fire, he sure failed in his miserable excuse for a post

 

What post are you referring to? Would like to check it out...