Enough Already with the Experiments - Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

[Viking]

This is one of few topics in domestic politics that has the ability to interest me...the Republic of Norway is inevitable, it will come in due time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is one of few topics in domestic politics that has the ability to interest me...the Republic of Norway is inevitable, it will come in due time.

Why?

[Sarmatian]

Nah, Louis has just found his grand-grand-grand-grandfather guillotine in the garage and thought how cool it would be to use it again and there's a label on it "works best on monarchs" so... Gives the world a shining example of French know-how as well, double trouble...

[Viking]

Why?

My wishes tend to become reality, don't they?

I think it is easier then ever to topple the monarchy at present; and that it should become even easier as time passes - for various reasons (some local). More public awareness on the topic, and the balance might be tipped.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My wishes tend to become reality, don't they?

I think it is easier then ever to topple the monarchy at present; and that it should become even easier as time passes - for various reasons (some local). More public awareness on the topic, and the balance might be tipped.

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

That's right. Uppity serfs like Viking need to understand that he will live forever under the iron fist of one incredibly wealthy family which owns large swathes of his country. Albeit, of course, that this iron fist consists of slaves keeping other slaves down in exchange for a pat on the head from massa.

As well it should be.

[Viking]

You might want to find a preferable alternative first, and a way to keep your newly-private-but-incredibly-wealthy-and-own-large-swathes-of-the-country-citizens out of politics permenantly.

Or you could not bother.

Having these people born into to their positions is terribly wrong. It is also a potential hazard for the unknown future. One must bother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having these people born into to their positions is terribly wrong. It is also a potential hazard for the unknown future. One must bother.

"Terribly wrong"?

Why? I'll grant you it's unfair for them to have to shoulder the burden of a whole nation by dint og birth, but they are fairly well compensated, I would say.

Constitutional monarchs are not wholly toothless but they can only really cause deadlock, not tyranny - so they represent no more danger to a nation than an elected president. Don't forget, most current tyrannies (Zimbabwe for example) are ruled by men initially elected into office. It seems to me that your main objection is an instinctive discomfort with someone holding a heriditory position - that's not necessarily wrong but I challenge you to demonstrate that Norway would be better governed as a Republic than a Monarchy. Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Because you don't get to choose it. People who go into lawyering are fairly well compensated for their troubles, too, but they choose to do it; and their employers choose to hire them. I've never seen a application to be my head of state from any of them royals for my review, have you? I do get similar ones on a fairly consistent basis from politicians and I pass my judgment on them by way of the ballot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

To be fair, this is probably only because the modern states that still have monarchies happen to be the ones that never went down the road of absolutism in the past (or if they did, they were checked early on). So the monarchy was weak enough in these places that it never merited a bloody overthrow by its own subjects.

Rather than these countries being stable because they are monarchies, they remain monarchies because they are stable.

Or you could maybe say that monarchy and stability at least complement each other. But I don't think so. My inner Marxist tells me that socioeconomic bla bla etc factors determine political systems, and not the reverse. Britain's political stablility with its parliamentary sovereignty and nominal monarchy is probably something to do with the fact that that very system was put in place after a serious of civil wars in which social (if not class) conflict was central. The middling sort, having cemented economic status and stablity, soon saw it reflected in the political system.

I don't see anything inherent in the idea of monarchy that makes it ideal for creating stability.

[Viking]

"Terribly wrong"?

Why?

Why is to wrong to harm people for no good reason? Why is injustice wrong? It is for me a moral that does not spring out from consequences, but rather a moral wrong in itself.

Constitutional monarchs are not wholly toothless but they can only really cause deadlock, not tyranny - so they represent no more danger to a nation than an elected president. Don't forget, most current tyrannies (Zimbabwe for example) are ruled by men initially elected into office.

Presidents will never achieve the same weight that a royal family will. Power lies in tradition related to persons and their blood. The PM is a nobody, he has his position on the mercy of the voters and his political partners - a very significant weakness, that I dear say is a symptom of a well-functioning democracy; this smaller focus on individuals.

Any person with powers represents a potential hazard, but if the democracy functions well - then the threat represented by a president is significantly lower as his position is not tied to his name in the same way that the position of a monarch is. In a future crisis, it would be easier for a monarch to put himself at thee helm, as he is a constant - 'always' been there and will 'always' be there, regardless. In a well-functioning democracy, a president would just have been one of many people appearing as adults, striving for the position.

It seems to me that your main objection is an instinctive discomfort with someone holding a heriditory position - that's not necessarily wrong but I challenge you to demonstrate that Norway would be better governed as a Republic than a Monarchy. Consider, a lot of the most politically stable places in Europe, with the happiest populations, are monarchies.

That's still more of a complaint than a reason. If the system works and you are well governed why make material changes?

It doesn't work, you see; the monarch is a bug in the system - just like any dictator would be. We make sacrifices to get the moral aspects of things right (though I don't think we are dealing with any major sacrifices here).