but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.
Basically, if you or a group say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control forever.”, at the very least, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, effective at the tasks of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your words.
your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people
You being good for people is secondary, less important parameter.
effective at the tasks of governance
I guess if your country managed to survive for 74 years before collapsing on its own, then we can conclude you were not effective.
Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest
This is not my argument. But if Ford really is the oldest car manufacturer, then it definetly scores them some points as a car manufacturer. It doesn’t mean their cars are good.
Based on the fact that whatever other qualities a government, or any organization, can have, they all don’t matter if that organization doesn’t last long. Not to mention that your precious quality of human life usually drops significantly when governments collapse.
Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
Unrelated to the discussion, ad hominem.
Basically, if you or a group say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control forever.”, at the very least, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, effective at the tasks of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your words.
You being good for people is secondary, less important parameter.
I guess if your country managed to survive for 74 years before collapsing on its own, then we can conclude you were not effective.
This is not my argument. But if Ford really is the oldest car manufacturer, then it definetly scores them some points as a car manufacturer. It doesn’t mean their cars are good.
Based on what?
What country are you talking about?
Exactly my point.
Based on the fact that whatever other qualities a government, or any organization, can have, they all don’t matter if that organization doesn’t last long. Not to mention that your precious quality of human life usually drops significantly when governments collapse.
Ussr
Governments don’t produce cars though.