Is monarchy a good form of government?

by **Pope Joan** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:44 pm

Monarchy provides stability; that is its chief strength.

It has no need to care for the masses; that is its chief weakness. It need only fear the great lords, or in these days, the great business powers. But that does not differ significantly from modern supposed democracies.

by **Cetacea** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:08 pm

UK politics is better than US politics

Constitutional Monarchies allow for democractic government whilst themselves, by being above political bias, can act to maintain sociocultural stability for the benefit of the nation.

Whats even cooler is that both the UK and Norway are Constitutional Theocratic Monarchies...

by **Saint Kitten** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:10 pm

Nervium wrote:The constitutional monarchies of our day have proven themselves not too bad.

Although they are pretty damn expensive.

They also pay for themselves quite nicely

by **NeuPolska** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:11 pm

It depends on the ruler...

I think it's good but only if the people have the ability to overthrow a bad monarch peacefully, and elect a new ruling family or a new King/Emperor/Duke/Prince/Queen/Empress/Duchess/Princess

by **Immoren** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:12 pm

Only if New monarch is chosen by council of peers instead of birth.
And is constitutional monarchy.

by **Digital Planets** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:13 pm

NeuPolska wrote:It depends on the ruler...

I think it's good but only if the people have the ability to overthrow a bad monarch peacefully, and elect a new ruling family or a new King/Emperor/Duke/Prince/Queen/Empress/Duchess/Princess

Yes, give me absolute power and I'll show you how to run a country using only bagels.

by **Pandeeria** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:13 pm

No.

Absolute Monachies are dictatorships with Royal fluff to it.

Constitutional Monarchies are slightly more modernized dictatorships that is hereditary and still had Royal fluffy shit.

A ceremonial monarchy is just a royal fluffy waste of time.

Monarchy sucks. I think many just need to get over it.

by **The Sotoan Union** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:14 pm

You are going to have to be specific. There's lots of different types of monarchies.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:15 pm

Those who are voting "yes" to monarchy being a good form of government: You realize, that YOU would not be the monarch right?

Why would you want to be in a situation where you have even less of a say than you do now? Do you really want some person you have never met to have ultimate authority over every aspect of your life?

by **Alexandreon** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:16 pm

NeuPolska wrote:It depends on the ruler...

I think it's good but only if the people have the ability to overthrow a bad monarch peacefully, and elect a new ruling family or a new King/Emperor/Duke/Prince/Queen/Empress/Duchess/Princess

There is so called "ius resistendi", the right of defence against tyrannical and overly oppresive government. It is not written in many constitutions (AFAIK it was included expressis verbis in Jacobin constitution draft during French Revolution), but most of the jurisprudence recognizes it both in the international public law and theory of constitutional law.

One may say, upon the preeminent theory of the social contract that the government is allowed by the People to exercise power within given limits, and when the government breachest them overtly and abusively, then the People is entitled to overthrow said government.

by **Capsland** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:17 pm

I don't know about other monarchies but the British one is quite nice ^.^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

by **Immoren** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:17 pm

Natapoc wrote:Those who are voting "yes" to monarchy being a good form of government: You realize, that YOU would not be the monarch right?

Why would you want to be in a situation where you have even less of a say than you do now? Do you really want some person you have never met to have ultimate authority over every aspect of your life?

Of course.
Why would anyone vote me into such position?

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:18 pm

Pope Joan wrote:Monarchy provides stability; that is its chief strength.

It has no need to care for the masses; that is its chief weakness. It need only fear the great lords, or in these days, the great business powers. But that does not differ significantly from modern supposed democracies.

I don't believe this is correct. If you study monarchies you'll find that they have less stability than modern democratic republics. Monarchies lead to great instability .

by **Pandeeria** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:19 pm

Has there even been a secular Absolute or Consitutional Monarchy?

by **Hayabusa** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:19 pm

Cetacea wrote:UK politics is better than US politics

Constitutional Monarchies allow for democractic government whilst themselves, by being above political bias, can act to maintain sociocultural stability for the benefit of the nation.

Whats even cooler is that both the UK and Norway are Constitutional Theocratic Monarchies...

by **The United Territories of Providence** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:20 pm

Nervium wrote:The constitutional monarchies of our day have proven themselves not too bad.

Although they are pretty damn expensive.

The British Royal family receives 40 million pounds of tax payer money. But their lands generate 200 million in revenue, so that's 160 million in profit. Also if you take tourism into consideration.... that's 7 billion pounds. I'm assuming a lot of people go to the UK for the royals, castles, jewels, etc. So expensive.... more like profitable.

by **Margno** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:34 pm

I like it. It's my second favorite form of government. At least, absolute, hereditary monarchy is.

by **Distruzio** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:34 pm

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

by **Estado Nacional** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:35 pm

It's as good as any other.

by **Pandeeria** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:38 pm

Distruzio wrote:It is absolutely a good,

Not really.

proper,

That's trival and arbitrary. I don't know why so many people use arbitrary fluff that doesn't mean anything as an argument or justification.

and moral form of government.

That's also arbitrary and not really helpful. Morality is shit, I could declare that it's immoral. I guess I can just say: See Above.

by **Distruzio** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:39 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Distruzio wrote:It is absolutely a good,

Not really.

proper,

That's trival and arbitrary. I don't know why so many people use arbitrary fluff that doesn't mean anything as an argument or justification.

and moral form of government.

That's also arbitrary and not really helpful. Morality is shit, I could declare that it's immoral. I guess I can just say: See Above.

Why isn't it good?

by **Agiptiota** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:43 pm

The UK's a good example of mixing democracy and monarchy to create a state that theoretically should never need a revolution. Ideally the monarch is popular, due to voicing few political opinions, and unites all groups. The monarch can mediate between groups if a situation arises where normal democratic politics wouldn't resolve things. The monarch has a constitutional power to dissolve or form parliament, but rarely does so without giving power to the largest faction in parliament. In the case of Spain, King John Charles was able to prevent a fascist coup via his constitutional powers, the Windsor crown and its representatives has exercised similar powers in Australia and Canada in extreme circumstances. In the case of all out war, where democracy may be problematic, the crown can create wartime coalitions.
Ideally, the monarch is ensured to be financially stable as so the head of state is not able to be influenced by bribes. In some republican governments the head of state can be influenced by bribes. Also although it sounds weird to say this about a democratically elected representative, but not all politicians are felt to represent the nation, even if they have a majority in parliament. Margaret Thatcher was seen by some as the best PM Britain's had, or by others she was seen as the most destructive politician the country's ever known. Sometimes an a-political head of state proves to be less divisive. A Witanagemot style entity would be desirable, picking the most able, and the least divisive of the Athel.
So a constitutional monarchy, in my eyes is a relatively sound form of government, although it raises a few questions. Should the monarch be filthy rich? Should they get free houses? What royal house should they belong to, or should it be an entirely elective post? Is the monarchy to take a religious form, and if so which religion?

by **Immoren** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:45 pm

Margno wrote:I like it. It's my second favorite form of government. At least, absolute, hereditary monarchy is.

Obviously in any proper monarchy monarch is chosen by federal electoral counts/princes.
Or halc-crazed woman living by the pond and lobbing falchion at first person to pass by her abode.

by **Zottistan** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:45 pm

Depends on the monarch.

by **Rabotnikisoyedinennyye** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:47 pm

Hespero-Belkia wrote:If it's a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Netherlands, or Japan then I see no problem with it.

If it's an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Tsarist Russia, then no.

Is monarchy a good form of government?

Is monarchy a good form of government?

Who is online