So, why is government regulation the worse option again?

[HoreTore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[HoreTore]

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]

Things we don't understand usually seems ridiculous.

And things we do more so.

[Montmorency]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I have no desire to debate nonsense.

[Montmorency]

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?

I have no desire to debate nonsense.

Exactly.

[Greyblades]

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]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

Goldman Sachs is evil, and they've infiltrated the government.

Incest is best, which brings us back to monarchy:

[Fisherking]

The revolving door got bad under FDR, think it began under Wilson, but I am not sure. Now it is just expected and Goldman is not alone.
Ike said the political-military-industrial complex. Most leave off the political part. But it is much more than just military, now it is in most areas of government and business that have crossovers.

[Fisherking]

Eh, it is actually relatively recent. The % of congressmen who go on to become lobbyists after leaving public office spiked sharply to over 50% in the '90s. It is a combination of '80s de-regulation followed by Clinton-era blind optimism that has come back to bite us in the ass.

What Ike predicted has in fact come to pass, but the floodgates only came wide open in the last twenty or thirty years.

No, you are only seeing the exponential growth. It just gets worse all the time.

[Papewaio]

The good news is that like most exponential growth it has an upper limit.

The bad news is that is when 100% of politicians next income stream includes lobbying.