Monarchists

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Buonapartisti are welcome on-board.
.

[King Henry V]

Is it too late to join? I'm a good old-fashioned constitutional monarchist, even though I like to whistle L'internationale (it's a jolly smashing tune!).

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It's never too late comrade.
.

[Ignoramus]

Either Absolute or Constitutional for me. As long as there's a balance of power between King and Parliament.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

[Beskar]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

It is not unfounded, you haven't been watching enough Disney movies or Tales of kings and princesses and knights of round table.

[lars573]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

Anyone who feels the head of state should be a mere political animal is lacking in reason.

[Cronos Impera]

I am an Absolute (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies.

[Cronos Impera]

I am a Feudal (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies. Just like in the Holy Roman Empire, electors from all counties unite to elect their supreme leader.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

As if the electoral farse in the United States means your president is the result of a clear and self-conscious majority, instead of one brainwashed by the media in name of the most money filled guy. I do not want this discussion to twist in that direction, but if McCain had more funds and support from his own party base (as well as bit more electioneering skill in choosing a charismatic VP) he would have won, purely and simply, despite the history of Republican rule - it turns out that every electoral machine in your beloved states is a slave to the interests of a restrict oligarchy, not much different from other regimes except in ostensible appearances.

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is not unfounded, you haven't been watching enough Disney movies or Tales of kings and princesses and knights of round table.

lol, well you are right about Disney. I don't really care for Disney movies nowadays, too stupid (Hanna Montana etc..).

Anyone who feels the head of state should be a mere political animal is lacking in reason.

The idea that any man in a position of power is anything more then a mere political animal is false.

As if the electoral farse in the United States means your president is the result of a clear and self-conscious majority, instead of one brainwashed by the media in name of the most money filled guy. I do not want this discussion to twist in that direction, but if McCain had more funds and support from his own party base (as well as bit more electioneering skill in choosing a charismatic VP) he would have won, purely and simply, despite the history of Republican rule - it turns out that every electoral machine in your beloved states is a slave to the interests of a restrict oligarchy, not much different from other regimes except in ostensible appearances.

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

Of course, it is so much more reasonable for the public to sit around and hope to be blessed with the birth of an enlightened ruler to be born then to actually give the public the power and means to put such an enlightened ruler there whenever they want.

I will not argue that our system is not flawed, but I have to laugh that the idea that any monarch with no accountability will genuinely put the public above everything else, including himself is not recognized as a farce in itself.

[King Henry V]

Why anybody would want a person without a clear consent from the governed in the form of a majority vote to rule over them is either lacking in reason or has such reason blinded by nationalistic pride, baseless tradition or unfounded delusions of an "enlightened" and benevolent ruler.

Reason has nothing to do with it, my good sir. We monarchists are romantic beings, with music in our hearts and poetry in our souls, and we are in love with all things ancient, quaint, eccentric or quixotic. I support crowned heads precisely because there are so few of them in the world, and are dwindling each decade, just as I would love a rare flower more than a common garden one. If the whole world were ruled by kings, I should defend to my utmost that single country ruled by a republic.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

.

[Reenk Roink]

So, for me, it is better to hope at an "enlightened ruler" than to nurture idealistic illusions about the true essence of a democratic regime. Heh, the only advantage to a more "democratic" system, is that at least we can open our mouths, as irrelevant as it will turn out to the general state of affairs and the dominance of the few behind the curtains.

Amazing string of words right here.

I even wonder if it is more likely for me to become a president or me to become a king of a country...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Of course, it is so much more reasonable for the public to sit around and hope to be blessed with the birth of an enlightened ruler to be born then to actually give the public the power and means to put such an enlightened ruler there whenever they want.

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

The problem with Democracy vs. Monarchy, though, is that Monarchy or most authoritarian regimes do not put up a nebula of catchphrases and idealism to act as smoke and mirrors vs. the true nature of its regime. And the true nature is that unless you can put up with several hundred million dollars in campaign donations and all the pervasive influence from behind the curtains to rise up the traditional ladders of power and influence, you're never going to be elected president or to even have a voice on how the country should be ran directly or indirectly. Occasionally, if you act like a radical or sound like one, the media might pay attention to you temporarily, but that's about it.

The measure of political rights is always proportional to how much wealth you have. Realizing it, the difference between a modern suffrage democracy and the old power apparels falls apart together with the illusions; the main difference between it and a Monarchy is that power among the Monarchical elites behind the throne meant landed wealth more than wealth in movable properties, while today it is the opposite.

I will not argue that our system is flawed, but I have to laugh that the idea that any monarch with no accountability will genuinely put the public above everything else, including himself is not recognized as a farce in itself.

The accountability of an oligarch is only towards the cadre that supports him. Large scandals only come down to the greater mass when the otherwise solid power elites are temporarily shattered and divided, then it becomes a convenient tool to throw against the ruling "party" in the name of the opposition. In most cases, the situation never changes radically.

Reason has nothing to do with it, my good sir.

It's rather the romantic idealism of the Monarch figure and of the aristocratic one vs. that of the perfectly self-conscious, well educated and engaged people. Both are myths, and both have little to do with ideological constructs or the illusions frequently nurtured for or against them. Still, the monarch has a level of aloofness and detachment that can serve him well if he is competent, while the great party leader or president can be little more than a pawn of the special interests that aided him into power at first and which are subject to changing whims and pressure of these same groups and the great mass that is always influenced by them. A Monarch might not completely avert these problems completely, but he has a far better control of the situation regardless of his competence due to the greater effective powers attributed to him, therefore allowing him greater care of the situation all by itself.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Amazing string of words right here.

I even wonder if it is more likely for me to become a president or me to become a king of a country...

It is actually easier to be President than a Monarch, I never denied this. However this not even is a valid assurance of the merits of new rulers or of the election process as a whole. All you have to do, is to enter a big party, lick their boots loyally, shatter all notions of an independent "plan" or ideal towards the improvement of the country, or at least leave it second to the needs of your party bosses and lobbyists, and you will raise high.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

The problem with Democracy vs. Monarchy, though, is that Monarchy or most authoritarian regimes do not put up a nebula of catchphrases and idealism to act as smoke and mirrors vs. the true nature of its regime. And the true nature is that unless you can put up with several hundred million dollars in campaign donations and all the pervasive influence from behind the curtains to rise up the traditional ladders of power and influence, you're never going to be elected president or to even have a voice on how the country should be ran directly or indirectly. Occasionally, if you act like a radical or sound like one, the media might pay attention to you temporarily, but that's about it.


The measure of political rights is always proportional to how much wealth you have. Realizing it, the difference between a modern suffrage democracy and the old power apparels falls apart together with the illusions; the main difference between it and a Monarchy is that power among the Monarchical elites behind the throne meant landed wealth more than wealth in movable properties, while today it is the opposite.

******** the public has no power or influence. Tell that to the Progressives of the early 1900s.

The issue of needing lots of money to run is not an inherent one of Democracy but is just an issue that needs reform within the United States. If proper reform were given towards campaign elections and donations there would be no need for millions of dollars and everyone willing to run would be allowed full access on television debates etc...

All the problems you are listing can be attributed not to Democracy in general but the two party system in America, heck any party system which manipulates the system to require millions of dollars from a party to run. The two parties are also the ones shutting out any other opinions from being spoken.

Was Lincoln a rich man? Not particularly. How did he become president? And of course the oligarchy that controls Democracy allowed Progressive taxation to amended into the US Constitution because paying much more money was "all part of the plan"?

The accountability of an oligarch is only towards the cadre that supports him. Large scandals only come down to the greater mass when the otherwise solid power elites are temporarily shattered and divided, then it becomes a convenient tool to throw against the ruling "party" in the name of the opposition. In most cases, the situation never changes radically.

Again, ******** read "all the presidents men" before you spew nonsense again. Two guys investigated probably the strongest and toughest political group the presidency has seen in a long time and brought it down.

It's rather the romantic idealism of the Monarch figure and of the aristocratic one vs. that of the perfectly self-conscious, well educated and engaged people. Both are myths, and both have little to do with ideological constructs or the illusions frequently nurtured for or against them. Still, the monarch has a level of aloofness and detachment that can serve him well if he is competent, while the great party leader or president can be little more than a pawn of the special interests that aided him into power at first and which are subject to changing whims and pressure of these same groups and the great mass that is always influenced by them. A Monarch might not completely avert these problems completely, but he has a far better control of the situation regardless of his competence due to the greater effective powers attributed to him, therefore allowing him greater care of the situation all by itself.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Oh gee what a brilliant insight, a monarch with the power to kill anyone he doesn't like has a better hold on the special interests group that helped him come to power.

"Thanks for helping me in usurping the throne, now bow down to me and do what I say or you all will be killed!" Is it supposed to make me feel as if he really cares about the general public when the obvious course for any monarch coming to power is to threaten those who helped him come to power with death lest he fears they take him out?

It is actually easier to be President than a Monarch, I never denied this. However this not even is a valid assurance of the merits of new rulers or of the election process as a whole. All you have to do, is to enter a big party, lick their boots loyally, shatter all notions of an independent "plan" or ideal towards the improvement of the country, or at least leave it second to the needs of your party bosses and lobbyists, and you will raise high.

And there you go, you have assumed that with Democracy comes political parties when that is false. Without political parties much of what you say would not be true.

Let history be the judge, monarchies have been around since the beginning of nations, why is that once Democracy began spreading across the world did we see vast improvements in peoples lives? Less wars? If Democracy can not be claimed to be the "better" of the two, then why did the world decided to move towards it in the first place? Why have they not switched back to monarchies?

[CountArach]

I am an Absolute (Elected by the Aristocracy) Monarchist. The people should be allowed to switch between rulling dinasties when an old monarch dies.

[HoreTore]

The public, in all cases, carries no effective power or influence at all. It only awards it to a restrict elite based on the tenets of "representativity", but factually of course this means the same old powerful families, or whoever has the most money or political ambition, or whoever acts in the name of their lobby, as the true commanders of the state. Obama is not much different from the others in that he is only yet another product of the Democratic Party, and from the corrupt Illinois machine to boot.

Ultimately, both systems do work. It is admittedly more comfortable to live in a state that imposes little restrictions and demands less of its citizens, but it is by no means the "best". What is wrong, is the notion that "Democracy" is a government that actually empowers the great mass equally and is an actual guarantee of the capabilities of every people it rules over.

Democracy doesn't work because it's "empowering the people" or whatever. Democracy works solely because of the existence of an opposition who will complain at whatever those in power do.

And the lack of such an opposition is also the reason why each and every form of dictatorship has failed and any future ones will also fail. A dictatorship simply isn't workable. In any form. It has never worked, and it never will.

[Fragony]

Democracy doesn't work because it's "empowering the people" or whatever. Democracy works solely because of the existence of an opposition who will complain at whatever those in power do.

And the lack of such an opposition is also the reason why each and every form of dictatorship has failed and any future ones will also fail. A dictatorship simply isn't workable. In any form. It has never worked, and it never will.

I think a top down approach is bound to fail because it has no consideration for local affairs, a dictatorship could work if local issues are adressed properly. A succesful democracy is a cluster of small local democracies.

oh, and viva la repubblica, shave the relics French style and never look back.

[HoreTore]

I think a top down approach is bound to fail because it has no consideration for local affairs, a dictatorship could work if local issues are adressed properly. A succesful democracy is a cluster of small local democracies.

oh, and viva la repubblica, shave the relics French style and never look back.

No, it still won't work. The reason it won't work is that the great ideas are achieved through debate and differing opinions. And that won't exist in a dictatorship. While they might achieve success in the beginning, every dictatorship is bound to fail eventually, as they run out of ideas, and those few ideas they will have are bound to be implemented the wrong way. Three examples:

- Nazi Germany. Initial success, Hitler bumped Germany's economy out of recession, and the early conquests of France, Norway, etc. were a great success. But then he invaded Russia. And he did so badly, because nobody dared to propose anything different to what he wanted to do, and as such the invasion was poorly planned and catastrophic defeat.
- Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe gained power, and quickly established proper education and health care for everyone, thus ensuring that all zimbabweans were able to read. But then he ran out of ideas, and mostly remained inactive.... Until he finally implemented his land reform in a truly idiotic fashion, resulting in a economy in ruins.
- Cuba. They have great healthcare and education. That was implemented in the first years after the revolution. There haven't been much progress since that time.

[Cronos Impera]

The people "are" the aristocracy. Those poor proles who are driven like cattle don't count as "the people".

[Fragony]

No, it still won't work. The reason it won't work is that the great ideas are achieved through debate and differing opinions. And that won't exist in a dictatorship. While they might achieve success in the beginning, every dictatorship is bound to fail eventually, as they run out of ideas, and those few ideas they will have are bound to be implemented the wrong way. Three examples:

- Nazi Germany. Initial success, Hitler bumped Germany's economy out of recession, and the early conquests of France, Norway, etc. were a great success. But then he invaded Russia. And he did so badly, because nobody dared to propose anything different to what he wanted to do, and as such the invasion was poorly planned and catastrophic defeat.
- Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe gained power, and quickly established proper education and health care for everyone, thus ensuring that all zimbabweans were able to read. But then he ran out of ideas, and mostly remained inactive.... Until he finally implemented his land reform in a truly idiotic fashion, resulting in a economy in ruins.
- Cuba. They have great healthcare and education. That was implemented in the first years after the revolution. There haven't been much progress since that time.

One could argue that it has always worked, succesfull society's where the central government doesn't interfere with local issues aren't that hard to find, quite the contrary, the makeup of the central government isn't necesarily a factor.

[CountArach]

The people "are" the aristocracy. Those poor proles who are driven like cattle don't count as "the people".

I'm glad you think that I am not capable of rational thought. Of course clearly you are not either by your own definition and therefore I take your opinion on Aristocracy to be worth nothing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm glad you think that I am not capable of rational thought. Of course clearly you are not either by your own definition and therefore I take your opinion on Aristocracy to be worth nothing.

Yeah I really don't get this...I don't know what to call it...this anti intellectualism? To support the notion that you and the rest of the poor to middle class public are not smart enough to make decisions for yourself and that it's good for the rich (how is this a measure of intellect anyway?) to rule over all the "stupid public" is....maddening.

[HoreTore]

Yeah I really don't get this...I don't know what to call it...this anti intellectualism? To support the notion that you and the rest of the poor to middle class public are not smart enough to make decisions for yourself and that it's good for the rich (how is this a measure of intellect anyway?) to rule over all the "stupid public" is....maddening.

"The rich"? He said the aristocracy, didn't he? Being a member of the aristocracy isn't a sign of wealth, it's a sign of inbreeding.

[Beefy187]

Parliamentary/Constitutional Monarchy supporter and a occasional backroom visitor, Beefy is here

Long live the emperor

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Welcome! Long live the Tenno indeed.
.

[a completely inoffensive name]

"The rich"? He said the aristocracy, didn't he? Being a member of the aristocracy isn't a sign of wealth, it's a sign of inbreeding.

Whoops, I assumed that if you were a part of the aristocracy that you would be rich.

[HoreTore]

Whoops, I assumed that if you were a part of the aristocracy that you would be rich.

The merchant class isn't a part of the aristocracy, and they were the ones with the cash...

[SwordsMaster]

One more here, Absolutist/Elected by peers