The Right of Democracy

[ICantSpellDawg]

What about their children then? Or the generation after that? Or after that? Of after that? What if they evently tire from absolute despotic rule? Then how should they chose there government if you remove the basis of any right to chose?

Through violence, you know, like they have traditionally done it. Or you could hand over the keys, but that might not be a great precedent to set.

[Incongruous]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance.

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before.

When has there ever been a good king?

I think there have been plenty.

[Incongruous]

Care to name any?
The goodness of Kings is held to a different standard to that of other men, thus there are many good kings in history, one good rights a thousand wrongs, no?
King Edward III would not hold up against modern concepts of a good man.

[KarlXII]

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before. .

A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else. If nobles are voting on issues, you still have a democracy, albeit an oligarchy. If you install a legislative body, a Senate or Parliament, you have representative democracy. Who says a monarhcy has to be absolute? The very definiton of monarchy does.

[CountArach]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.

There is one good King out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_K...gyel_Wangchuck
Of course, he is a good King because he is Democratising his country

[KarlXII]

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?.

Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[CountArach]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

An essential and inevitable defect, which will always rank monarchical below the republican government, is that in a republic the public voice hardly ever raises to the highest positions men who are not enlightened and capable, and such as to fill them with honour; while in monarchies those who rise to the top are most often merely petty blunderers, petty swindlers, and petty intriguers, whose petty talents cause them to get into the highest positions at Court, but, as soon as they have got there, serve only to make their ineptitude clear to the public. The people is far less often mistaken in its choice than the prince; and a man of real worth among the king's ministers is almost as rare as a fool at the head of a republican government. Thus, when, by some fortunate chance, one of these born governors takes the helm of State in some monarchy that has been nearly overwhelmed by swarms of "gentlemanly" administrators, there is nothing but amazement at the resources he discovers, and his coming marks an era in his country's history.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Care to name any?

Modern heads of state in constitutional or absolute monarchies:

Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
Jigme Singye Wangchuck
Queen Elizabeth II
Pope Benedict XVI (as Sovereign of Vatican City)
Bhumibol Adulyadej

Want me to go farther back? Alright, let's do that then.

Frederick II of Prussia
Gustav II Adolphus
Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov
Friedrich Wilhelm (Brandenburg)

A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

The Wikipedia page on "Monarchy" also defines a monarch as an individual who rules as head of state, but that the powers of the head of state can differ while the country remains a monarchy.

Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

The creation of a monarchy, as you can see above, does not result in the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands.

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

[Caius]

Well, looks like a good question, as allowing people to vote for undemocratical parties in the name of freedom, and freedom of speech, and you know the rest. But, some of those kind of parties will try to impose themselves in the power if they fail to win the elections. I was going to call an not real situation, but I'm not sure if its worthy enough if this post isn't even read.

[Incongruous]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.

[CountArach]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

[Incongruous]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands.

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

Although rather abrasive and non-sporting (), this is a rather good summation of an all round good idea!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

[CountArach]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.

[Incongruous]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

Yes I agree that poor political philospher has been worn out by progression hasn't he?
Where has all that high-minded Rupublican vigour gone to?

[KarlXII]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......

[CountArach]

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.

Alright then:

What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

Yes I agree that poor political philospher has been worn out by progression hasn't he?
Where has all that high-minded Rupublican vigour gone to?

I don't know, but I want it back :(

[Incongruous]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?

The fact is Evil Maniac, that a monarchy can never compete with Democracy in allowing men to judge what is best for themselves, and thus is under threat of politically minded men getting rid of it. As history has shown us.

You are not going to give us a Platonic view are you?

[CountArach]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?

I think these are a good look

I <3 Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.

What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

[CountArach]

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.

The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.

I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

3) Tourist money.

When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.

What about when the Monarch dies?

5) A monarch is non-partisan.

Alright, this one is a fair point. I'm sure examples of very partisan Monarchs could be found.

6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

We aren't whining about the Constitutional Monarchy, we are whining about the Monarchy part of it. You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

[KarlXII]

1) And what if the monarch is incompetent?
2) And? Does a sense of tradition make him a better ruler?
3) Come on, we're talking about administrating a nation, not tourism.
4) And if that rock is the laughing stock or most hated, it will not change until death, while a President is always recycled based off what the people want, not what a few think is good for them.
5) Hahaha, not even close.
6) Explain how a king is more diplomatically able then a President.

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.

Then you should have no problem with many European countries current administrations.

I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

[Incongruous]

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.



1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

1) A politician has been learning since birth about how society works. He has a a good understanding of his nation.
2) An elected leader brings a sense of social inclusion and cohesion with him or her.
3)Tourist money "You know I really like Paris but I've always felt it lacks a Royal Family"
4) There is a solid oak hat represents your country, and grows with time. Look at France.
5) Bopa doubts Monarchs can be non-partisan in a modern world, full of smart and wealthy men. Bopa can get rid of his lected leader.
6)Bopa does not udrstand this point, Bopa confused.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

That is untrue and you know it.

I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

Not necessarily. Tradition is the preservation of what gives your country identity.

When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

Perhaps. But you must admit that in the United Kingdom, for example, a monarch seems to hold a certain something that a President could not. The people flock to the pomp and ceremony of a monarch.

What about when the Monarch dies?

You get a new solid rock to represent your country. Laws of succession can differ - you do not need to pass the throne to the firstborn son, but instead it can go to the most competent child.

I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...

For one thing, one of the main aggressors in the First World War was France - a republic. Secondly, when it comes to monarchies, we must look to the future, not the past. Anyone who wants a return to the WWI status quo is a fool - a modern monarchy can be and is something much different. Thirdly, monarchy was one of the most common forms of government of the time, so the likelihood that a monarchy would start a war was much higher than it is now.

I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

It does not, on a practical basis, make you any more or less free.

You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

Incorrect. For one thing, we have many different types of democracy. Secondly, the citizens still have a voice through their elected representatives, who control the actual balance of power in the country, making it democratic.

I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

Because they can't. I'm not talking about an absolute monarchy or anything even close to that - I'm talking about a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has a little more power, and where checks and balances exist to both the Parliament and the monarch in the form of each other and a constitution.

[Incongruous]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

It seems worse because we cannot get rid of him if we want. What happens when the royal line dies out?
If he cannot rule by his will then what is the point of him?

Checks and balances? haha go tell that to the people of Diego Garcia!
Sounds like bolloks to me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

I've given you opinions, ideals, something that is possible. My system, which I have previously laid out in detail for someone (which may have been you), is not perfect, but is also not tested. And how can we find the ideal form of government if we do not try things?