Monarchy saves the world

[Cronos Impera]

Monarchy is the best thing that happened to humanity. It consolidated the sense of national identity, it encouraged progress and forged states for their citizens to be proud of.Monarchy created a balance between the right and left so extremism/terorism ware rare.Monarchy brought happiness and order while republicanism ( It's republicanism not democracy. Democracy died with Athens 2000 years ago. Our current political system is based on Republican Rome not Democratic Athens) only encouraged instability (terorism/fundamentalism/political correctness/hypocricy) and totalitarianism.
Iran was a splendid Middle Eastern state before it lost it's shah and began the republican era.Germany respected Human Rights before it had Keiser Wilhelm resign from power.Afganistan was a prosperous power before it lost its monarch while now its a Stone Age republic. All crumbles when monarchies are transformed into republics.
All republicanism ever did was cause instability and chaos. People need someone superior to follow, someone virtuos and influent immune to worldly distractions.Someone permanent and inviolable to create a sense of security and ensure peace ( Compare the frequancy of wars in the Reneisance with the XX century).What has republicanism (aka: modern democracy) brought us? WMD's, a Holocaust, terrorism, loss of culture, globalization, fundamentalism, civil war and global warming.
The world needs monarchies, not playboy crowned heads. Tabloid magasines only spoil the sacred monarchy.

[AntiochusIII]

Wow, we haven't seen monarchists visiting the Backroom for quite some time, eh? We had (still have?) the Creationist visit, occasional other kinds of visits, but a reactionary monarchist? Exotic!

By the way, your examples don't work. Neither does your logic.

I don't have much time, but here's a few "examples":

-The Renaissance was a state of more-or-less constant war as it always was. Why do you thing Niccolo boy was writing The Prince? You eat up the Victorian propaganda very well. I didn't think it still works. Oh well.

Learn history before making such claims.

-The concept of a superior man = falsehood and extreme cynicism. Personality cult and inferiority complex. I'm sure Nietzsche must've gone quite insane in his grave now since just about everyone misinterpreted his philosophy as something of a Nazism. The Nazis included among everyone, of course.

-The Shah sucks. Why do you thing they started a Revolution? Because he freakin' sucks, that is! He oppressed the people, pander the colonialists, brutally held them with an iron fist. He's lucky they didn't hang him--unlucky for the USA, too. Poor Carter.

-Citizens proud of their monarch = propaganda. I know this far too well. Don't argue with me, for I witnessed the propaganda effects of such claims. By God and everything Kingly in the world.

-Afghanistan, prosperous under monarchy? What have you been smoking?

-You fail to see the difference between the modern Democratic Republican state and fundamentalism. You just blame the liberals (old sense, conservative folks) for what was done by the fundies. Or, as LEN generously put it, the spiderheads.

-The world doesn't need monarchy. Thank you.

-What has monarchy caused us? Let's see, from other one-million-three-thousand-random-number-far-too-countless-to-count-them-all of the atrocities that your glorious monarchy concept brought, I could bring:

The miserables of Russia since just about there was monarchy.

The one million headcount of the monarchs murdering each other for power.

The one billion headcount of the monarchs warring with each other.

The ten millions headcount of the monarchs "punishing" dissidents, aka Freedom Fighters.

The hundred thousand cities burned down by the Kings. Include with it rapes, looting, murder, genocide, and there you have it.

The miseries of just about everyone who lived under a serf system, or subject to equally totalitarianistic positions, and all that crap.

What have you been reading to make you suddenly thing some ass of a human deserve to be the God-King among us?

*of course, the numbers are...figures of speech.

[littlelostboy]

Monarchy leads to Imperalism. Imperalism leads to colonialism. From 1500s to the mid 1900s when the so-called "Developed" countries or Western Powers colonized the rest of the world, they plunged those countries into porverty and mired those "Developing" or "Underdeveloping" countries in porverty. Why? Well, when those mornarchy countries colonized those countries, they did not developed the colonized countries economies. All they wanted was cheap raw materials from those colonies to make secondary products and sell them at a higher prices in the colonies. In fact, these former colonies still really heavily on primary industry, selling raw materials to the Developed world. They still have a long way to industralized their economies. Furthermore, these colonies had no chance to develop their own government, therefore resulting in the civil wars you see in these former colonies.
Also, these monarchy countries ruthlessly put down any attempt by the natives to rebel against them and imposed their own ways, culture and thinking and language and at the same time tried to wipe out the natives' culture and langauge and customs. One good example would be Africa.
So no, while mornarchy does inspire nationalism and create a strong central government and hierarchy, it does no good in the end.

[King Henry V]

Though centralised, absolute power may not be the best form of government nowadays, if the world was governed by democracies since the beginning of history, we wouldn't be nearly as developped as we are now.

[Red Peasant]

Though centralised, absolute power may not be the best form of government nowadays, if the world was governed by democracies since the beginning of history, we wouldn't be nearly as developped as we are now.

Err, that's a pretty definite statement, your proof is?

[GoreBag]

It doesn't matter if the man on the throne wears a crown or not. Same turd, different pile.

[King Henry V]

Err, that's a pretty definite statement, your proof is?

Power needs to be centralised in the hands of one person for a country to be united or expand, if not there will merely be a bunch of continuously warring factions (example: Italy 13th-16th centuries).

[Lehesu]

I do believe that the United States has expanded along pretty well with a democratic system. At least, the Indians would agree. Don't confuse monarchy with strong leadership. There are strong presidents working through the system that have done more to further progress than kings. Monarchy sounds peachy as long as you have a benevolent monarch. As soon as you get a callous SOB or some incompetent weasel, the shit hits the fan. Democracy provides a "reset" button if these guys manage to somehow get into power.

And also, don't confuse the crumbling of monarchist nations as a direct result of losing the monarchy. The collapses are a direct result of globalization and proof that monarchies actually cause stagnation and failure to adapt. Everything worked under the status quo, but as soon as globalization forced a change, the country went to hell in a handbasket because it had no experience in dealing with change, save being force-fed it by a monarchy (with limited results).

[King Henry V]

Did the Americans really have any stiff opposition against them? The Red Indians were sometimes very good fighters, but were by no means the technological equal of America.

[lars573]

Monarchy is the best thing that happened to humanity. It consolidated the sense of national identity, it encouraged progress and forged states for their citizens to be proud of.Monarchy created a balance between the right and left so extremism/terorism ware rare.Monarchy brought happiness and order while republicanism ( It's republicanism not democracy. Democracy died with Athens 2000 years ago. Our current political system is based on Republican Rome not Democratic Athens) only encouraged instability (terorism/fundamentalism/political correctness/hypocricy) and totalitarianism.
Iran was a splendid Middle Eastern state before it lost it's shah and began the republican era.Germany respected Human Rights before it had Keiser Wilhelm resign from power.Afganistan was a prosperous power before it lost its monarch while now its a Stone Age republic. All crumbles when monarchies are transformed into republics.
All republicanism ever did was cause instability and chaos. People need someone superior to follow, someone virtuos and influent immune to worldly distractions.Someone permanent and inviolable to create a sense of security and ensure peace ( Compare the frequancy of wars in the Reneisance with the XX century).What has republicanism (aka: modern democracy) brought us? WMD's, a Holocaust, terrorism, loss of culture, globalization, fundamentalism, civil war and global warming.
The world needs monarchies, not playboy crowned heads. Tabloid magasines only spoil the sacred monarchy.

-The Shah was an authoritarian despot. And the revolution that broke out against him was taken over by the Ayatollah he'd banished. Originally it was a peoples revolt.
-The German politicians under the Kaiser refused to use their constitutionally granted powers to control his actions. Giving him defacto personal rule. Which lead Germany into a war that cost them land, pride, and millions dead. And created the seeds for Nazism.
-The Afghan king was ousted by a group of communist rebels. They formed a peoples republic. Who then tried to force communism on an Islamic people. This led to the current situation.


Still I beleive that a constitutional democratic monarchy is the best form of government yet devised by humans.

[Lehesu]

Did the Americans really have any stiff opposition against them? The Red Indians were sometimes very good fighters, but were by no means the technological equal of America.

Not to bruise anybody's feelings, but the United States has been generally acknowledged as the world superpower at this moment in time. We managed to get there with a democratic system. Our lack of monarchy did not inhibit growth and actually helped us avoid many of the problems that affected the colonial empires.

[Brenus]

Yes, monarchies are so good that we, French, we had a Revolution and several small one to get a Republic…

“Democratic Athens” was democratic only if you don’t count the slaves… If you do, it was an oligarchy, far from democracy…

“Monarchy leads to Imperialism”: Not only. No political system is immune of the temptation to imperialism. The French III Republic was the one which developed the 2nd Colonial Empire…

“Still I believe that a constitutional democratic monarchy is the best form of government”: Well, the fall of all Empires and Monarchies is a definite proof that what you believe is questionable…

[Duke of Gloucester]

Our lack of monarchy did not inhibit growth and actually helped us avoid many of the problems that affected the colonial empires.

Examples of the problems you are referring to might be interesting! Did you not avoid the problems colonial empires had by not being a colonial empire?

[A.Saturnus]

Power needs to be centralised in the hands of one person for a country to be united or expand, if not there will merely be a bunch of continuously warring factions (example: Italy 13th-16th centuries).

Err... the cultural advancements made in Italy during that time rival if not outclass anything from any nation that had existed up to then.

[lars573]

“Still I believe that a constitutional democratic monarchy is the best form of government”: Well, the fall of all Empires and Monarchies is a definite proof that what you believe is questionable…

People will believe anything. Some believe that communism can work. Some believe that anatchism and a gift economy work. People beleive that pure capitailism won't destroy your economy. Still others beleive that pure socialism won't do the same. So I'll be happy in my views on monarchy.

[yesdachi]

Monarchy is a great form of government if you are the monarch.

Here is Sid Meier’s Civilization description of Monarchy – its not bad.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rule by monarchy developed as a logical extension of the absolute rule of tribal chieftains. Many of the earliest monarchs, such as those in
ancient Egypt, claimed that they ruled by divine right. In the spread of European monarchy during the Middle Ages, however, rulership was
generally conveyed upon a leader who could most effectively raise and command an army. Monarchies are dynastic, with rule of the country
passing to the eldest son when the king dies or retires. Monarchs had absolute rule over their subjects, severely limiting the personal and
economic freedom of all citizens except for nobility and the rich upper class. Although monarchies ruled most of Europe for centuries, the
unhappiness of lower-class citizens eventually grew intolerable, causing several major revolutions. By the mid-18th century, the power of the
European monarchs had been severely limited, paving the way for participatory systems of government.

And here is the description of democracy

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Democracy is a ruling system where the citizens have a great deal of control over the actions of the government, either directly or through
elected representatives. Democratic governments can be traced back to the city-states of ancient Greece and Rome. Citizens would gather
in a public forum, and each one would have the opportunity to speak and vote on issues affecting the community. This direct democracy
system was possible due to the relatively small populations of the city-states. Starting in the 17th century, the monarchs of Europe began to
be stripped of their absolute power, and by the end of the 19th century the citizens had a strong voice in government in many European
nations. Large populations made public forums impractical, so the people elected groups of representatives to carry their views to the ruling
powers. Strictly speaking, this type of system more closely resembles a republican system rather than a true democracy. This type of
representative democracy is considered the best governing system in the modern world because of the personal and economic freedom
enjoyed by the citizens.

[cegorach]

Gah !

The first post is so full of errors, weird assumptions and wishfullthinking that is not worth an answer - it would take far too much time to write, time I can spend in much better way.

[Lemur]

We should all be polite and kind to Cronos. How many right-wing nuts do we have? Plenty. How many communists do we have? Okay, maybe one. Lots of Euro-socialists, though. And we get a creationist pretty much every other month.

But how many monarchists have we seen? They're rare, man. Our esteemed guest should be treated like an endangered species, complete with a habitat protection program.

Welcome, monarchist. We love you.

(Now if we could just get a flat-earther in here ...)

[Lehesu]

Examples of the problems you are referring to might be interesting! Did you not avoid the problems colonial empires had by not being a colonial empire?

That's part of it. I don't know what you know about America, but we had a period of Manifest Destiny that nearly became the beginning of an Empire. If Teddy Roosevelt had been Supreme Overlord of the United Imperial States of America, he woulda been itching to use that White Fleet he built. Thanks to a strong democratic tradition, this idea was folly. Even so, we still couldn't resist the urge to snap up a couple of islands here and there.

[GoreBag]

(Now if we could just get a flat-earther in here ...)

What are you talking about? The Earth is cylindrical.

[Kralizec]

Before I reply in full, you seem to be using some unorthodox -and very confusing- definitions. Could you please define:

-monarchy
-democracy
-republic
-republicanism

[Aenlic]

We should all be polite and kind to Cronos. How many right-wing nuts do we have? Plenty. How many communists do we have? Okay, maybe one. Lots of Euro-socialists, though. And we get a creationist pretty much every other month.

But how many monarchists have we seen? They're rare, man. Our esteemed guest should be treated like an endangered species, complete with a habitat protection program.

Welcome, monarchist. We love you.

(Now if we could just get a flat-earther in here ...)

Don't forget me! I'm here to represent the libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists and the other forgotten who got off the political spectrum bus at the last stop and lost our bus passes!

Help, help! I'm being repressed!

[AntiochusIII]

We should all be polite and kind to Cronos. How many right-wing nuts do we have? Plenty. How many communists do we have? Okay, maybe one. Lots of Euro-socialists, though. And we get a creationist pretty much every other month.

But how many monarchists have we seen? They're rare, man. Our esteemed guest should be treated like an endangered species, complete with a habitat protection program.

Welcome, monarchist. We love you.

(Now if we could just get a flat-earther in here ...)

Lemur--Senior Member!?

Congratulations! (read it with French accent only).

Since when, man?

[Lemur]

I'm pretty sure my seniorhood is an accident. I guess I should apply to the board of trustees to have it either revoked or confirmed.

[Divinus Arma]

The United States do have a Monarchy. All were loyal to Greenspan. Recently the reign of Bernake has begun. Take note and offer purple (lest he taketh away thy green).

[The Wizard]

Please. A monarchy is only as good as the person that embodies it. As such it must be treated on a case-per-case basis, and should definitely not be defended by some misbegotten ideology, commonly referred to as 'monarchism'.

[Cronos Impera]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.
Kralizec, democracy died out with Athens MM years ago. The current political system is based on the roman (client-patron) system. This implies that citizens don't play an active role in society, but they transfer their power to the political parties, as in Ancient Rome.
Deomocracy is that political system proposed by Thomas Morus in "Utopia", the falanstere project and the soviet system before Lenin took power and overthrew the soviets.That was democracy.
Monarchy-Despotism. Let's separate those ideeas a little. Despotism/tyrany appears when a warlord overthrows the previous goverment and starts to rule autocraticly and without legitemacy so he often tries to wipe out his opposition.( Hittler, Alexandru Lapusneanul, Stalin,and nearly every dictatorthat walked the Earth).
Monarchy is the political system where one person exerts his full influence over a number of subjects supported by tradition and lineage. The monarch acts like a balance, moderating all political life. He can promote development, liberalism and teritorial expansionism.
Well Antiochus, think about that. Before the Meji era, Japan was ruled by a shogun. a military despot. The start of the Meji era ( Monarchy) inaugurated a series of reforms that transformed Japan into the third economical power after the EU and USA.
It is tough choosing the right monarch, but once the right one has been chosen, all things really start to move.

[AntiochusIII]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.
Kralizec, democracy died out with Athens MM years ago. The current political system is based on the roman (client-patron) system. This implies that citizens don't play an active role in society, but they transfer their power to the political parties, as in Ancient Rome.
Deomocracy is that political system proposed by Thomas Morus in "Utopia", the falanstere project and the soviet system before Lenin took power and overthrew the soviets.That was democracy.
Monarchy-Despotism. Let's separate those ideeas a little. Despotism/tyrany appears when a warlord overthrows the previous goverment and starts to rule autocraticly and without legitemacy so he often tries to wipe out his opposition.( Hittler, Alexandru Lapusneanul, Stalin,and nearly every dictatorthat walked the Earth).
Monarchy is the political system where one person exerts his full influence over a number of subjects supported by tradition and lineage. The monarch acts like a balance, moderating all political life. He can promote development, liberalism and teritorial expansionism.
Well Antiochus, think about that. Before the Meji era, Japan was ruled by a shogun. a military despot. The start of the Meji era ( Monarchy) inaugurated a series of reforms that transformed Japan into the third economical power after the EU and USA.
It is tough choosing the right monarch, but once the right one has been chosen, all things really start to move.

False.

The Romans never had anything like modern political parties. The closest they ever came to that were the factions of the Republic, based around, still, individuals with king-like powers over their subjects competing with each other with mobs on the streets and occasionally armies. The strongmen, the corrupted senators, the demagogues, and the generals. None expressed any ideological positions as their cases for leadership. This is far from the modern political party. True, it is still a body of men; true, it's purpose is to take power; but no, it was not Romans. The modern political parties--at least, the really significant ones--are tied, at least theoretically, and in their birth, to the ideologies they professed.

Everyone recognize that what we call as "Democracy" today is a Democratic Republic. You don't express any point by reiterating that, sadly.

You support monarchy by lineage. That is foolish. Again, what in the world allow one dumbarse to think that since his daddy was king he has a legitimate right to oppress everyone else? None; absolutely none. Neither the "Divine Rights of Kings" of the Medieval Age, the natural and quite frankly violently cruel "The Strong Rules," or the "Monarch as justified by Hobbes (the evil necessity that is better than the even worse state of nature" are really grounded on firm arguments. They are dreams and propaganda and the iron mail of the fist and the chain upon the masses under their rule. Nothing more.

What was an ancient king, a king with absolute power you are supporting? A despot, that is. Any attempt to define between them is either propaganda or futility.

Tradition--what is tradition? How does tradition come into being? Traditions are intertwined with the conditions of society. If tradition obstructs society, then tradition will die off. If the traditional women's role is to serve and be subservient, then in a modern society the tradition must go. You are committing the old argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy here. Just because it was there; just because daddy was king, doesn't mean it's right or fair. What is is not the same as what should be.

And your example, Japan, displays your further lack of knowledge on history. The so-called Meiji monarchy is never a true monarchy in the sense you are demanding. Power lies with the prime ministers, the generals, the officials, the ones who were once revolutionaries, rebels, and became leaders, rulers, and commanders--these are the people who truly drove Japan forward; who commanded Japan's armies in her ruthless expansion. Not Emperor Meiji. He was little more than a symbol. The extend of power of Hirohito himself was disputed even today--it seems unlikely that he had any more power than what the military was willing to relinquish to him and obey.

You say it's tough choosing the "right" monarch. I'm skeptic that a monarch should even be chosen, but for it's own sake: tell me, how do choose the "right" monarch? What if those millions of the "weak" masses and thousands of the maniacs were chosen, instead of this hypothetical, mythological ubermensch that we are "supposed to choose"?

[Cronos Impera]

Antiochus, tradition is the main thing that gives you a sense of identity. When tradition is gone, your identity is gone with it and you're nothing but a drone eating, shiting and sleeping. Have you read Japan's former constitution? the first article " Japan is forever ruled by an imperial dinasty". Without Emperour Meji the revolution would have never succeded. It is the only revolution with support from people in high places. The prime ministers ware responsible in front of the Emperour. The Emperour's person was sacred and inviolable. The simple opinions of the Emperour ware commands. If there wasn't a powerful icon such as Emperour Meji, Japan might have been transformed into a Brittish colony.
When you imagine a monarchy you tend to think about "Les Miserables" and Louis XVI.Well, during Louis XVI France was expanding its economy despite the "American Independence War" and other european conflicts. He had to loan great sums of money to cover the expenditures from the bankers but he never paid them back.
The bankers ware quite angry with it and used the masses to start a revolution. What happened next? Years of terror and purges made by romantic revolutionary heroes that supported democracy against tirany, the Napoleonic wars and the end of France as a world power.
I can say Antiochus that you've been subjected to liberal propaganda......and that's fallacious too. Argumentum ad populum vs. Argumentum ad Antiquitatem.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Everyone recognize that what we call as "Democracy" today is a Democratic Republic. You don't express any point by reiterating that, sadly.

Constitutional monarchies are also democracies.