- And how about, - suppose - everyone who makes up western society today, for reasons unknown, bring life to an old, yet functional method of government. Would they accept a new "adoptive monarchy" with all the current "progress"? I think not. And then you ask youself: - Is he crazy to propose such an old-fashioned idea - and one that seems ephemeral - without any basis? Well, the ancient romans did not criticize the unique experience they had between the governments of the emperors Nerva and Marcus Aurelius, during the famous “Nerva-Antonine” dynasty - 96 AD - 192 AD - and which was known as the period of greatest peace and prosperity throughout the existence of the roman state. An adoptive monarchy does not care for the hereditariety of its monarchs, since the citizens who assumed this magnanimous commitment to their civilization would have to be bathed in virtues, and above all, an "positive-ego”.

About Nerva - AD 96 - AD 98 -, as his rule as emperor was of less than two years, there is not much to comment on, however, his path to the position of “Princeps Civitatis” is one to be analyzed. He started his political career with the creation of a "networking" with the current reigning family - the Flavian dynasty - acting in the positions of diplomat and strategist. He took a very important step in his political climbing in revealing the "Pisonian Conspiracy" of 65 AD against emperor Nero, a completely egoistic and wise act, which made him well regarded by the senate and the "Praetorian Guard". With these achievements, he came to power in the senate in the year 71 AD in the position of consul and then again in 90 AD, conquering the Roman “throne” in 96 AD.

Trajan - AD 98 - AD 117 -, the successor - and adopted heir - of Nerva, will inaugurate his empire by sharing the maiden of fame with the commoners, the senate and the praetorian guard. This made his military conquests - through his rhetoric - widely known and revered, to the point of being proclaimed - still in life - “Optimus Princeps”, something that no other emperor would achieve.

After Trajan's death, Hadrian- 117 AD - 138 AD - made use of all the prestige that his predecessor would leave him and was very loved and worshiped for being appointed by Trajan. Hadrian, was known for his piety and altruism, being seen as a hero by the commoners. However, it made many modifications and improvements to Roman life as a whole, such as the stabilization of borders and the creation of a spirit of nation the roman people in the new established frontiers.

Antoninus - 138 AD - 161 AD - will assume a stable and solid empire, where he could have fun playing pious, causing his predecessor - Hadrian - to be venerated as a new god, something that would make him to be very well regarded.

And finally we have Marcus Aurelius - 161 AD - 180 AD -, who was able to spend his free time practicing stoicist gift, the “art of approaching death”, something that made him very exotic to be seen as emperor and that in the end, brought one of the foundations for the group of virtues we currently have.

And now, why all this talk about people who seem to have lived in a distant reality? So that it is understood that all the good deeds of all these emperors were only accomplished because all of them had a purpose, something to be accomplished, and not to the Roman state itself, but to themselves, because they knew that acting for something other than themselves would only bring bureaucracy and unnecessary complexities. They realized the maxim of the conscience, that is to understand that the ego is the only one to be realized, everything beyond the individual is a consequence of his acts, and all of them - even the ones that appeared to not make a difference -, were emperors, by coveting being the best, therefore, the most egoists. I don't see contemporary individuals criticizing them, they are even known historically as “The Five Good Emperors”! All unrelated, only selected by their predecessors on their deathbed. Chosen for their virtues and character. All “egoists”, all virtuous. They all flourished and grew up together with the roman state, because they knew that for their civilization to prosper, they would first need to prosper, Democratic monarchs, please adopt your successors!

It was rule, and it still is, if the individual conscience becomes aware that it is part of an organism much larger than itself - the state, the church, the community, etc ... - it becomes disfunctional, much more difficult to assert yourself upon the organism, or the system that this organism maintains. Ex: You have breathed automatically all your life, however, when someone reminds you to breathe, suddenly the same act that was previously common and unnoticed, now becomes somewhat more uncomfortable and difficult, until the ignorance that this act exist comes back to the conscience and everything stabilizes again. With the organisms that we - humans - create, is the same thing. Accepting that it is only necessary to realize "individuality" - the ego -, all these complexities and problems become much easier to be accomplished, as they will be accomplished, but not directly, but indirectly.