@Seb
I would argue against arranged marriages because it’s highly dysgenic. Just look at the physical and cognitive fitness of places like India and the Middle-East. Female hypergamy is extremely necessary; what we have now is mismatched and delusional expectations, but having high-standards for men is what builds up a population. It also removes particular genetic affinities two individuals might have with each other: that is better left to instinct rather than a third-party. Consequences for bad choices in men are also removed with arranged marriages, so both male and female fitness are eroded when you remove choice.
On the second point, hereditary monarchies are extremely prone to infiltration and/or degeneration. While I do agree that they offer a sense of investment, from both the regent and the people, it only remains true if the line is never compromised, either genetically or politically, which is impossible given enough time. I am pro monarchy, but for a selected king, rather than elected (democracy is another easy point of infiltraton) or simply chosen by default. Details on how that system would work are highly complex and would of course need to be pondered with care, especially the “selected not elected” part (i.e.: who selects the selection/selectors, and so on). If that could not be achieved, I don’t think having a monarchy would be worth it.
I would love to hear any other points of view.
Cheers!
.
