Every Ruler Makes the Same Mistake When They Die

For me, several books by Greg Egan fall into this category. Permutation City, Diaspora, Quarantine, and Schild's Ladder have all... changed me. I was a different person before and after I had read those books, and now I categorise all works of fiction into those that forever alter my way of thinking and those that do not. [LINK] Which reminds me, I should finish: [LINK] The Culture series by Iain Banks, especially Inversions also satisfy this requirement, as does The City at the End of Time by Greg Bear: [LINK] -- which is a difficult to consume masterpiece that nonetheless left me permanently horrified in the way that H. P. Lovecraft tried but failed. For the non-fiction category the CGP Grey video "The Rules for Rulers": [LINK] and Part 2: [VIDEO] have totally changed the way I look at all political discourse, and this is coming from someone who has already absorbed The Prince. It's based on the Dictator's Handbook, which I should read also, but the CGP video was an effective summary already! [LINK] Last, but not least, if I'm allowed to include lecture videos, then the "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" lecture by Al Bartlett is absolutely amazing. You will never see the news in the same way again after watching it: [LINK]

To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]? [1]: [LINK] [2]: [VIDEO] [3]: [LINK]

The 101-level crash-course on this is CGP Grey's video Death & Dynasties : [VIDEO] . In est, your "social connections" — Grey's "keys to power" — value stability of their own powerful positions in your government (or noble house, or family-run utility company/industry monopoly, or whatever other forms lumps of power can take.) The key-holders' own political power exists regardless, but whether it translates to active ability to affect change right this moment depends on favor of the current ruler. Who better to place their bets on, then, as a replacement for a ruler who will continue to favor them — a ruler who will ensure the stability of the previous ruler's power base — than someone the previous ruler has been grooming for that very job from birth? But I would argue that, at least for non-totalitarian states, there's also another, more interesting and crucial influence on what makes power legitimate. When governments and noble houses generate revenue and get things done through free people who they employ or contract — not slaves or serfs or indentured servants — then it's the opinion of those free people on who is the legitimate next ruler, that actually determines who the legitimate next ruler will be. In a non-totalitarian state, a ruler cannot rule without the will of the people. To do otherwise provokes a populist -led revolution to abolish the seat of power altogether. Looking at how lines of succession of royal seats of power work/are calculated can be enlightening,

I believe that. Family connections matter far more than how hard you work. I don't think it's unfair, or that there's too much capitalism, but it's the nature of the system. [VIDEO] edit: Sarcasm on HN is a bad idea. Obviously earning 400x a worker's wage is bullshit, there's no amount of work that justifies that. Well, look at what Steve Jobs did for Apple. Regardless of whether he would've done that if he was paid less, how many workers was he worth? The natural follow-up question is then, why not pay them what they're worth? One reason CEOs are paid so much is to prevent them from making short-term decisions that optimize their stock price at the expense of long-term planning. If their entire compensation is tied to the stock price, there's no incentive for any CEO to try to do better than increase the stock price at any cost.