So, why is government regulation the worse option again? [Archive]

Xiahou

08-02-2013, 21:00

Both sides blame the other for being in corporate America's pocket, but the reality is that it is prevalent on both sides. Goldman Sachs is an example of a company that should be torn down brick by brick, its executives barred from the industry forever and/or thrown in jail, and laws ought to be made to prevent such a stupid conflict of interest ever again.

Alas, both sides will play the blame game until everyone forgets instead.I readily agree that both sides are in the pockets of corporate interests. If you're a major corporation and you don't have an army of lobbyists in DC buying influence, you're finished. As the saying goes, if you don't have a seat at the table- you're on the menu. Virtually every regulation that is passed is with the approval or even prodding of a lobbying group.

Government creates these behemoth organizations and then we expect government to fairly regulate them- it's not going to happen. Even if you think that new regulations will help- they won't. They just hurt the small players who can't afford to buy their own DC influence peddlers.

Goldman Sachs should have gone out of business instead of being bailed out. If it was "too big to fail", as was claimed, it should have been taken into conservatorship, broken up, and sold off to repay as many of its debtors as it could. Instead, it gets bailed out and has effectively no consequences for its poor choices.

Montmorency

08-02-2013, 21:19

The problem is, how do you get elected if you have no stake in the private sector?

Do we only appoint eccentric rich hermits from the 'gentry' to the legislature? Only those who have been homeless and destitute for at least 5 years?

Even coming from the other end and forbidding Congresspeople from ever working in the private sector again (after their terms are up) has clear problems.

Xiahou

08-02-2013, 21:21

Your pie chart could have used some Bush Administration/Haliburton ties. These sorts of things occur because businesses can get their tentacles into the government easier than ever. Money equals speech, super PACs are legitimized corruption, and there is no way to turn back the clock on campaign finance law when both parties are complicit.Campaign finance laws are a restriction on free speech. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission):

During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book

It's madness. Book bans are the logical extension of these laws- the government lawyers made that argument themselves.

The regulation should be very simple: Members of the government should have no stake in the private sector. Public service should be something you are willing to sacrifice financial gain for. That's why congress gets paid so damned much, right? So that they don't have to turn to corruption? Right now they are having their cake and eating it too.And what about the revolving door? Are you going to jail a politician for taking a job after they leave office? What about their staffers? family members? There's nothing simple about it.

Montmorency

08-02-2013, 22:08

A law preventing them from having any ties to lobbyists or big business would never pass, because it would step on what these guys do for a living

Small businesses that provide services or goods to, or receive from, big businesses? Which is to say, almost all of them? Or, ultimately, every one, because somewhere along the supply chain there's going to be a big business?

When you decide to run for office, you should be putting yourself in a position of extreme self-sacrifice.

But then, it's the same question: who actually runs, and whom do we actually elect?

Even stuff as simple as family in business should be enough to prevent it. Make it harder than getting a top secret clearance. Got family in the financial sector? Got stocks in Goldman Sachs? Are you currently working for Goldman Sachs? You can't run for office then (or receive a presidential appointment, for that matter), go screw yourself. Better safe than sorry.

I feel like at that point we would be better off just appointing the citizens who are left eligible to the legislature than even bothering to hold elections...

HoreTore

08-02-2013, 22:57

The problem is, how do you get elected if you have no stake in the private sector?

I have read very little in this thread, and I'm just butting my head in on this single issue:

How 'bout academia? What about letting the smart guys run the show, instead of the greedy idiots?

Greyblades

08-02-2013, 23:33

Who watches the watchers

HoreTore

08-02-2013, 23:51

American academia is also generally run by business. Certainly anyone who relies on research grants will be the opposite of unbiased.

I find it hard to imagine that the top professors at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc are all corrupted and entangled with special interests.

Those are the guys who should be prime candidates for cabinet jobs, IMO.

The Chinese, who are rapidly owning your collective behinds, have been doing that since they shot Mao's drinking buddies to great success, even though it's been limited to just a few disciplines, ie. natural sciences(they're all engineers).

Montmorency

08-02-2013, 23:58

How 'bout academia? What about letting the smart guys run the show, instead of the greedy idiots?

There are plenty in academia who are avaricious, short-sighted, or even downright ignorant.

There are plenty outside it who aren't.

Anyway, just because someone's good at doing research in some narrow field with a few hundred colleagues around the world doesn't mean they'll be good at administering a broad range of legislative matters for hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of fellow citizens.

But you're not taking the Platonic angle of permitting only academics to run for public office, right?

Ultimately, there is the conflict of interest regarding kickbacks to and from academic institutions themselves. Then again, I suppose these can't cause nearly as much harm as trillion-dollar Big Finance...

Finally, only the politically motivated would run, and in the end that's the very same problem, isn't it?

I find it hard to imagine that the top professors at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc are all corrupted and entangled with special interests.

Those are the guys who should be prime candidates for cabinet jobs, IMO.

They often are - it's just that, how would they do in the heights of the legislature rather than in the mid-executive?

If you rely on corporations to exist, you probably don't belong in the government.

Same complaint I raised before : who doesn't, really?

a completely inoffensive name

08-03-2013, 00:07

Because like everything else in this capitalistic society, public office is thought to be another commodity that can be bought and sold.

Americans have steadily rejected the idea of a public good, and now they must realize one by one that they will never become part of the oligarchy that has bought everything up.

Montmorency

08-03-2013, 00:23

There's no need to get semantically absurd with this.

It's not at all.

Every business relies on big business, ultimately. Even a run-down pizza parlor in Harlem, or a bait shop in rural Minnesota, would be susceptible to this influence somewhere along the line. You're the one who thinks even corporate ties with universities (in training, or jobs' fairs, or whatever) make academics as corruptible as big lawyers and corporate executives and financiers, after all...

If you rely on corporations to exist, you probably don't belong in the government.

And yes, perhaps Joe Blow off the street with a GED and a low-income service-sector job doesn't have any unacceptably strong ties, but:

*Why would he run at all, unless he were both extremely passionate and extremely confident that he could win?*
*Could he afford to run and fail?
*What would make him qualified to legislate, or at least more so than a lawyer or some-such individual?
*What makes you think he would be less, rather than more, corruptible to any of the naughtier stuff going on in the legislature?
*What makes you think he wouldn't seek to become a career politician, if not just because the benefits are so much better than in his old job?
*What makes you think he would, if a Rep, work for his district rather than his neighborhood, or if a Senator, for his state rather than his county?
*What makes you think he would be nationally-minded at all?

*The 'novelty' candidates - who typically run for very local positions - are irrelevant

HoreTore

08-03-2013, 00:38

But you're not taking the Platonic angle of permitting only academics to run for public office, right?

I'm talking about cabinet members, not people running for office.

And no, I'm not suggesting to restrict it to academia. What I'm saying is that there is a huge under-representation of leading Harvard(or similar) professors in cabinets. And not just in the US, but everywhere.

But one of the things that seems to rise from the euro crisis is the technocrat government - and I think it's a rather good idea.

Have Harvard's leading professor of law as justice minister, have their leading economics professors(but stay clear of chicago...) as finance minister, etc.

Narrow fields? That's only applicable to the lower-level ones. It doesn't apply at all to the true greats, like Dewey, Schumpeter, Habermas, etc.

Montmorency

08-03-2013, 00:38

No, my point was, why do you think Joe Blow would be a better politician than our current politicians?

Major Robert Dump

08-03-2013, 04:01

hey look at this

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml

Xiahou

08-03-2013, 07:11

I often joke that anyone who wants to run for elected office should be banned from holding it. Only people who want nothing to do with politics should be allowed into office.

But seriously, there is no practical way to stop people from getting into office and lining their pockets, practicing patronage, or whatever. Rules get passed, and they find ways around them. What we really need to be doing is having them wield less influence in the first place. As I've said, virtually any bill passed out of congress has lobbying interests behind it.

If congress didn't make such convoluted and far-reaching tax code and regulations, there would be nothing for the lobbyists to curry favor for.

TheLastDays

08-03-2013, 11:18

The only reason why democracy is better than a monarchy is because you aren't stuck with the current ruler for life and a lot of people have (to some extent) a say in politics.

The problem with human politics is that down in the bottom we only care for ourselves and as long as we don't even want to overcome that we will run into a wall whenever we try to make someone a "public servant" - yes I believe the highest leaders in a society should be the servants of said society, work for everyon'es good but the problem is, we just can't. We are selfish bastards and when presented with the possibility we will do what is best for ourselves whatever that means for someone else.

Now democracy puts it into the hands of a vast mass of selfish bastards to sorth things out and because there are so many goals and views of life that are for the most part contrary the ones that are currently the mighty members of society can't do all that much with their power, limiting the damage they can do while pursuing their selfish goals.

HoreTore

08-03-2013, 12:01

The only reason why democracy is better than a monarchy is because you aren't stuck with the current ruler for life and a lot of people have (to some extent) a say in politics.

That's actually two reasons, and they're far from the only ones.

TheLastDays

08-03-2013, 12:50

That's actually two reasons, and they're far from the only ones.

You're right it's two but you can scratch the first. You are actually stuck with the ruler(s) for life just that it's a lot of them...

lars573

08-03-2013, 15:45

The only reason why democracy is better than a monarchy is because you aren't stuck with the current ruler for life and a lot of people have (to some extent) a say in politics.
Monarchies can be, and are, democracies.

TheLastDays

08-03-2013, 22:00

It's nice that you all hang yourselves up on the semantics of the introduction to my post rather than answering the core of it. Alright then: Absolute Monarchies and even that's just a placeholder for any non democratical form of government.

lars573

08-03-2013, 23:23

First of all it's non-democratic. Second your opening sentence was offensive to me. The rest was a whole pile of no shit sherlock.

TheLastDays

08-04-2013, 00:10

First of all it's non-democratic.

Thank you :bow:

And offending you was definitely not my goal.

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 16:00

First of all it's non-democratic. Second your opening sentence was offensive to me. The rest was a whole pile of no shit sherlock.

Monarchy is, by its very definition, non-democratic. It flies in the face of everything that is democratic and just in this world.

That some democracies still contain that relic of an age we do not wish to return to, monarchy, does not in any way alter the fact that it is one of the least preferable forms of government in existence.

The sooner it disappears from this world, the better.

lars573

08-05-2013, 17:20

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 17:39

Wrong on everything. Presidential Republicanism is the least preferable form of government in existence. Monarchy doesn't fly in the face of all things democratic and just. It enhances them.

Republicanism is what needs to go.

Democracy is founded on the notion that all men are equal and that the only legitimate source of power is the will of the people.

An unelected, hereditary position of power fits into that as well as a seagull in an opera.

A monarchy in its original form is just like a military dictatorship, whether it's absolute or not. It contains all the things we do not wish to see in society, like blatant favoritism of useless cronies and royal harlots, a ridiculous focus on war and aggressive foreign politics, botched public works projects, etc etc. It's fascism in both practice and theory. Luckily for all of us, the monarchs in the western world have zero power, and all they can do now is to support reactionary fascists(which they do in abundance) and spend our tax money on $100.000 hats(which they also do in abundance).

They are basically social welfare recipients. Now, I have nothing against social welfare recipients in general, but I do have a problem with them when they recieve millions and show no willingness to ever get a proper job.

Hopefully this relic of ancient times will soon die out. The sooner, the better.

Montmorency

08-05-2013, 17:40

Wrong on everything. Presidential Republicanism is the least preferable form of government in existence. Monarchy doesn't fly in the face of all things democratic and just. It enhances them.

Republicanism is what needs to go.

Well, it's a bit disingenuous to make claims like that and not elaborate on them, don't you think?

What exactly are you thinking of?

TheLastDays

08-05-2013, 19:13

Democracy is founded on the notion that all men are equal and that the only legitimate source of power is the will of the people.

An unelected, hereditary position of power fits into that as well as a seagull in an opera.

A monarchy in its original form is just like a military dictatorship, whether it's absolute or not. It contains all the things we do not wish to see in society, like blatant favoritism of useless cronies and royal harlots, a ridiculous focus on war and aggressive foreign politics, botched public works projects, etc etc. It's fascism in both practice and theory. Luckily for all of us, the monarchs in the western world have zero power, and all they can do now is to support reactionary fascists(which they do in abundance) and spend our tax money on $100.000 hats(which they also do in abundance).

They are basically social welfare recipients. Now, I have nothing against social welfare recipients in general, but I do have a problem with them when they recieve millions and show no willingness to ever get a proper job.

Hopefully this relic of ancient times will soon die out. The sooner, the better.

Depends... I'm not sure, if you put it to vote in let's say Great Britain that a majority would want the monarchy to go. So if a majority of voters wants to have a king on top of their democratic government who's to say they can't have one beause it's not democratic?

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 19:20

Depends... I'm not sure, if you put it to vote in let's say Great Britain that a majority would want the monarchy to go. So if a majority of voters wants to have a king on top of their democratic government who's to say they can't have one beause it's not democratic?

Then they must have a vote on it.

You can't just assume something is according to the peoples wishes. That's what a dictator does.

TheLastDays

08-05-2013, 19:35

Then they must have a vote on it.

You can't just assume something is according to the peoples wishes. That's what a dictator does.

I don't live in a country with a monarchy so it's hard for me to judge it but if I had any say in it I'd agree with you, it should be put to vote.

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 19:37

but if I had any say in it

You're in the backroom now, you have a say in every matter in every location, especially the ones you don't know that much about ~;)

Karl08

08-05-2013, 20:30

Perhaps I'm a little dense, but what is the point of moving the aluminum from warehouse to warehouse? Couldn't they just... store it at the warehouse?

Fisherking

08-05-2013, 20:38

They profit from manipulating government regulations and upping the price for the storage as the phony moves cause prices to go up.

It is a shell game kind of scam.

a completely inoffensive name

08-05-2013, 21:50

Wrong on everything. Presidential Republicanism is the least preferable form of government in existence. Monarchy doesn't fly in the face of all things democratic and just. It enhances them.

Republicanism is what needs to go.

Reminds me of a passage from Common Sense.

To say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First. — That the King it not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy.

Secondly. — That the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: the King, say they, is one, the people another; the Peers are a house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen, that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only, and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind: for this explanation includes a previous question, viz. HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.

Monarchy is a joke to all those who put value on independent thought and freedom. Inherent in any form of monarchy, there exists the irrational assumption that a singular man can be treated as above the muck of common humanity. All the education and wealth in the world does not erase the fact that any king or queen is just as ill as any of the commoners who suffer from the state of being a human being with all of its flaws.

By giving an individual a certain degree of absolute power, you do nothing but place upon your shoulders the impossible task of constantly fighting this individual to prevent further power consolidation and constantly conceding to make sure that his position remains relevant. Eventually, the die will be cast and you will end up in total monarchy or with a completely neutered head of state. I personally feel that the history of England proves this case and highlights the option they ended up with.

Montmorency

08-05-2013, 22:09

Eventually, the die will be cast and you will end up in total monarchy or with a completely neutered head of state. I personally feel that the history of England proves this case and highlights the option they ended up with.

Then again, can't Belgium's monarch dissolve the legislature or sommat? Sort of like a nuclear option, in that it would surely lead to the abolition of the monarchy...

you do nothing but place upon your shoulders the impossible task of constantly fighting this individual to prevent further power consolidation and constantly conceding to make sure that his position remains relevant.

Yet this is even so with democracy. In fact, it may well be the very fundament of representative democracy.

there exists the irrational assumption that a singular man can be treated as above the muck of common humanity.

Then what of the irrational assumption that any man of the "muck of common humanity" should have right to act in any regard?

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

Why can't they be equally wise?

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.

Huh? The monarch has the most means of information, or he is a monarch in name only.

The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly

Perhaps we can forgive the man this rubbish, as he is writing from a different time.

but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself;

Precisely - this is the best way available to achieve unity.

Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God

What fantastical power could there be which needs no checking? Even in a direct democracy, the people would need to place checks against themselves.

The only thing Paine ever got right is that learning Classical languages as a hobby is a waste of time. :yes:

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 22:35

Thomas Paine argues from a position in 1776, and as such you have both misunderstood his position and the institutions he argues against and in favour of.

Things we don't understand usually seems ridiculous.

Papewaio

08-05-2013, 22:42

Things we don't understand usually seems ridiculous.

And things we do more so.

Montmorency

08-05-2013, 22:46

Thomas Paine argues from a position in 1776

Then what's the point?

If I can't relate his writings of 1776 - and so his points - to the present and the future, then there's no value to bringing him up other than as a historical curiosity.

Papewaio

08-05-2013, 22:50

Some people prefer to be on the bottom of a ruck, others prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants.

Take your pick but don't complain about the consequences of either choice.

a completely inoffensive name

08-05-2013, 22:51

then there's no value to bringing him up other than as a historical curiosity.

Who said I brought him up other than a historical curiosity? I simply said it reminded me of the passage. People have been arguing about monarchy for centuries now and the trend since Paine's time seems to be universally less monarchy, more representative democracy. That's all I really wanted to get across with the passage.

Montmorency

08-05-2013, 22:53

Who said I brought him up other than a historical curiosity? I simply said it reminded me of the passage.

Well yeah, I'm responding to Horetore.

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 22:57

Then what's the point?

If I can't relate his writings of 1776 - and so his points - to the present and the future, then there's no value to bringing him up other than as a historical curiosity.

While you may not be able to do so, plenty of other people are perfectly capable of taking the words of history's great minds into the present time.

Montmorency

08-05-2013, 23:12

While you may not be able to do so, plenty of other people are perfectly capable of taking the words of history's great minds into the present time.

So, uh, what exactly do you disagree with?

HoreTore

08-05-2013, 23:31

So, uh, what exactly do you disagree with?

I recognize Thomas Paine as a smart guy, and believe he makes a good argument. As you have not understood his position, your responses just look absurd.

But if you really require specifics, we can start with your last argument: Kings rule by the Grace of God. This is the power which does not need a check(God doesn't need one).

Rhyfelwyr

08-05-2013, 23:47

Let's clear up a few points right away. Monarchs can be elected, subject to law, and limited in their powers.

Monarchy is a joke to all those who put value on independent thought and freedom. Inherent in any form of monarchy, there exists the irrational assumption that a singular man can be treated as above the muck of common humanity. All the education and wealth in the world does not erase the fact that any king or queen is just as ill as any of the commoners who suffer from the state of being a human being with all of its flaws.

It is important to make a distinction between the monarchy as an official position, and the monarch as an individual person. This distinction was at the heart of the English/British Civil War. According to the Parliamentarian/Whig position, sovereignty rests in the office rather than the person of the monarch, and as such this actually means the people retain sovereignty in a much more meaningful way than they do in modern democracies, where sovereignty is invested in the democratic leaders rather than remaining more directly with the people. In this model of monarchy, a subject is actually subject to no person, but only an abstract concept. Whereas in a standard democracy, you are subject to your elected rulers.

By giving an individual a certain degree of absolute power

To speak of "a certain degree of absolute power" seems like a contradiction of terms.

you do nothing but place upon your shoulders the impossible task of constantly fighting this individual to prevent further power consolidation and constantly conceding to make sure that his position remains relevant. Eventually, the die will be cast and you will end up in total monarchy or with a completely neutered head of state.

The same in true of any institution or individual which is invested with political power.

Montmorency

08-06-2013, 00:07

I'm specifically ignoring his position, because I don't care about it. Look again - I'm taking specific lines and commenting on them, and my comments need not be taken as having any bearing on his larger context. I'm speaking to nothing more than the words themselves, which should be made clear by the generality of my comments:

But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the King is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

Why can't they be equally wise?

Why, Mr. Paine, must one party be assumed inherently wiser than the party that it is "checking"?

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of Monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.

Huh? The monarch has the most means of information, or he is a monarch in name only.

The state of a king shuts him from the World, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly

Perhaps we can forgive the man this rubbish, as he is writing from a different time.

I disagree with your understanding of the character of the monarchy, Mr. Paine. It is groundless to say that an ostensibly powerful head of state is prevented from having access to information or perspective by his very being a head of state. I take it to the general "head of state" because a monarch is a head of state while not the only head of state who "acts in cases where the highest judgment is required". A king, nor any other head of state with substantial executive powers, can not be "shut [...] from the world", as the very privileges and obligations of such a position entail an apprehension of the whole to a far greater extent than any other individual within the state save the intelligence apparatus itself, or powerful ministers and suchlike.

but this hath all the distinctions of a house divided against itself;

Precisely - this is the best way available to achieve unity.

A metaphorical "house divided against itself" is not only something which is possible, but which is necessary for a stable and functioning state.

Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God

What fantastical power could there be which needs no checking? Even in a direct democracy, the people would need to place checks against themselves.

Mr. Paine, you say that "any power which needs checking" can not be wise, or can not be complimentary to the wisdom of the people which have bestowed it. I assert that there is no such thing as an unchecked power within a state, meaning your statement refers to some utopian ideal, "something which either cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description".

HoreTore

08-06-2013, 00:09

You're arguing specifically against his individual words, with no interest in his meaning?

I have no desire to debate nonsense.

Montmorency

08-06-2013, 00:12

You're arguing specifically against his individual words, with no interest in his meaning?

Because it is totally irrelevant. What, do you think I'm trying to argue against Paine's anti-monarchism, or his view of the British monarchy? :rolleyes:

I have no desire to debate nonsense.

Exactly.

Greyblades

08-06-2013, 00:48

Well this is a wierd and pointless departure from the original subject matter. I have no idea what you guys are talking about, nor what it has to do with anything.

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2013, 01:28

It is important to make a distinction between the monarchy as an official position, and the monarch as an individual person. This distinction was at the heart of the English/British Civil War. According to the Parliamentarian/Whig position, sovereignty rests in the office rather than the person of the monarch, and as such this actually means the people retain sovereignty in a much more meaningful way than they do in modern democracies, where sovereignty is invested in the democratic leaders rather than remaining more directly with the people. In this model of monarchy, a subject is actually subject to no person, but only an abstract concept. Whereas in a standard democracy, you are subject to your elected rulers.
That sounds fine in theory, but in reality the abstract is for all intents and purposes, the human who speaks for that office. If it is that much more meaningful than a standard democracy, why did your country choose the standard democracy route and completely strip away everything but the name behind the monarchy?

To speak of "a certain degree of absolute power" seems like a contradiction of terms.
My definitions:
absolute power = power which is not checked by another authoritative body
limited power = power which is checked by another authoritative body

A position can have certain powers that are entirely within its domain and certain powers which are limited by checks from others. Thus, I do not see the contradiction of terms.

The same in true of any institution or individual which is invested with political power.
To a degree, yes. But the structure in which monarchies are implemented makes this juggling act impossible in the long run. Whereas with a presidential system, obviously the same problems occur over time, but it took over 230 years to get to where the US president is today.