Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Thyrgga]

Constitutional: Good
Somewhat Constitutional (like Germany in the 1890s): Better
Absolute: Even Better
Fascism: Best

[United Marxist Nations]

Please, find evidence that the famine in the USSR was intentional, because I have found nothing but people repetitively claiming it.

[The UK in Exile]

[
Well, they certainly executed far fewer people for political crimes than the Republic.

Over the course of its entire existence? Doubtful.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

In any case, Napoleon was a complex enough man that to argue over him would require a thread of its own.

That seems like a good idea, actually.

[Lavan Tiri]

Personally, a monarchy where the people can, by popular vote and a majority, depose of the leader and elect a new one seems good.

[The UK in Exile]

Personally, a monarchy where the people can, by popular vote and a majority, depose of the leader and elect a new one seems good.

we call those Monarchies "republics"

[The New Sea Territory]

George Orwell was a man who had views I strongly disagree with. He was also a man who spent much of his life opposing extremism and working to oppose authoritarianism. I doubt he'd agree with your position that people who resist change should rightfully be killed. He was a moderate; you are a dangerous radical.

Orwell was not a moderate in any sense of the word. He fought in Spain against the Fascists and was a democratic socialist. That's not really a moderate ideology, especially in the 40s.

It isn't people who resist change. It is people whose resistance to change is being used to justify direct oppression of millions.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

George Orwell was a man who had views I strongly disagree with. He was also a man who spent much of his life opposing extremism and working to oppose authoritarianism. I doubt he'd agree with your position that people who resist change should rightfully be killed. He was a moderate; you are a dangerous radical.

Let's speak of Orwell, the great Anti-Authoritarian who decided to hand in a black list of names to the government based on telling sign of Communism, like being "anti-White" or being "a bit of a poofter" in another post.

If there was free speech under the Republic, how come 16,594 political opponents of the Committee of Public Security were guillotined and a further 25,000 people summarily executed,

Is it right that they murdered all those people, no, but then again, it was justifiable from a political point of view, the early years of the Republic was fragile, with many nations trying to invade them from all sides to reinstate the monarchy, and those that are likely to support their campaign to overthrow teh republic are, surprise, Monarchists and other reactionaries.

including not just royalists but moderate revolutionaries such as the Gironidins?

The Gironidins were hardly moderate.

And I never said the starvation was deliberate, as under the USSR. Just that the Republic failed to suddenly make starvation go away. It was a famine that caused the starvation, by the way, under both the monarchy and the Republic.

And the Republic also made living a whole lot more bareable for the majority of Frenchmen, than under the Monarchy.

[Lavan Tiri]

Personally, a monarchy where the people can, by popular vote and a majority, depose of the leader and elect a new one seems good.

we call those Monarchies "republics"

No, the position would still be hereditary, but the idea is too complicated to explain in one sentence.

This would be an oligarchy combined with a Monarchy. The monarch would be elected from a group of families that comprise all the people in the nation. If they were good, they'd stay until death, when one of their children would be elected by a parliament. If they sucked, the people could get rid of them, and elect a new monarch. Anyone could run, and the vote would be direct.

[The UK in Exile]

we call those Monarchies "republics"

No, the position would still be hereditary, but the idea is too complicated to explain in one sentence.

This would be an oligarchy combined with a Monarchy. The monarch would be elected from a group of families that comprise all the people in the nation. If they were good, they'd stay until death, when one of their children would be elected by a parliament. If they sucked, the people could get rid of them, and elect a new monarch. Anyone could run, and the vote would be direct.

So.... a republic?

[Conserative Morality]

Well, they certainly executed far fewer people for political crimes than the Republic.

Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood—one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, they certainly executed far fewer people for political crimes than the Republic.

Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood—one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

[Lavan Tiri]

No, the position would still be hereditary, but the idea is too complicated to explain in one sentence.

This would be an oligarchy combined with a Monarchy. The monarch would be elected from a group of families that comprise all the people in the nation. If they were good, they'd stay until death, when one of their children would be elected by a parliament. If they sucked, the people could get rid of them, and elect a new monarch. Anyone could run, and the vote would be direct.

So.... a republic?

Republican Monarchy.

[The UK in Exile]

So.... a republic?

Republican Monarchy.

So thats basically a republic but with a royalty themed theme park?

[Threlizdun]

So.... a republic?

Republican Monarchy.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/oxymoron

[Traekun]

No, because it rewards people for the success of their parents. That is somewhat tolerable when it comes to money or property, but not control of a nation.

Non-absolute monarchy is much better, but still rewards people for being born to a certain individual rather than for any actual achievements of their own.

[Cetacea]

No, the position would still be hereditary, but the idea is too complicated to explain in one sentence.

This would be an oligarchy combined with a Monarchy. The monarch would be elected from a group of families that comprise all the people in the nation. If they were good, they'd stay until death, when one of their children would be elected by a parliament. If they sucked, the people could get rid of them, and elect a new monarch. Anyone could run, and the vote would be direct.

So.... a republic?

Thats how my rl nation works (technically). At the death of the last leader all the elders gather together and choose the best person for the job to take over leadership (with criteria based on political ability, common support, heritage and personality). He needs to foster common support or the people do there own thing. Of course the past 7 Paramount Leaders have been the same family, due to traditionalism having political currency...

[Shaggai]

Constitutional: Good
Somewhat Constitutional (like Germany in the 1890s): Better
Absolute: Even Better
Fascism: Best

The problem with concentrating power in the hands of one person is that it tends to provide wildly varying results. When the ruler is good, it can be good. When the ruler is bad, it gets burned to the ground.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Constitutional: Good
Somewhat Constitutional (like Germany in the 1890s): Better
Absolute: Even Better
Fascism: Best

The problem with concentrating power in the hands of one person is that it tends to provide wildly varying results. When the ruler is good, it can be good. When the ruler is bad, it gets burned to the ground.

As Hanfei Zi noted, most of the time, it is in the hand of the mediocre.

[Zunkwentania]

If I'm the monarch, yes. If not, no.

[Shaggai]

The problem with concentrating power in the hands of one person is that it tends to provide wildly varying results. When the ruler is good, it can be good. When the ruler is bad, it gets burned to the ground.

As Hanfei Zi noted, most of the time, it is in the hand of the mediocre.

Well, yes. But absolute monarchy is still not particularly stable unless there are no other options. Democracy may also be mediocre, but it is reliable at that.

[Distruzio]

It is absolutely a good, proper, and moral form of government.

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

Not one. Ever.

[Distruzio]

It makes for a more interesting history in my opinion. But republics are better, just not as interesting.

But how are republics better?

By enfranchising a few at the expense of the many, of course. Whereas monarchy enfranchises the whole at the expense of the monarch.

[Distruzio]

Which does not refute that life in Imperial Russia was shit.

So your response is that life under the Communists was shit but life under the Tsars was shitty shit?

[Forsher]

No less so than republics. As is always the case it depends entirely on the exact processes involved. In simple terms, this means absolute monarchy isn't even if you managed to isolate a period of enlightened rule it's simply not evidence contrary to this while consitutional monarchies are. The most fundamental way of stating this is thus: as longa s the monarch reigns but does not rule it is all good.