Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:02 pmWhy not?
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Is monarchy a good form of government?
Page 17 of 34
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:02 pmPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:03 pmPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:09 pmHitler was appointed by the President, Mussolini rose to power by threatening the king, and Franco won a war. None of those were democratic.
Actually, looking back on the comment chain, it seems that Orson was arguing that it was a bad idea to appoint a dictator, in which case yes, that's happened. But that is nowhere near democratic.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:16 pm"That wasn't a real 'no true Scotsman fallacy' anyway."
The OP is asking about 'monarchy' as a form of government, not monarchy in terms of its cultural applications.
Most modern day monarchs don't actually withhold any of the powers of a monarch. This isn't a fallacy, it's just simple history that the modern day governments of Norway, or the United Kingdom, have few if no similarities to their earlier counterparts. Sure, they are called "monarchies," just as China is still sometimes referred to as "communist." It's purely cultural.
I'm not arguing that the person who originally quoted my post is wrong either, only that I need stronger clarification as to what form of "monarchy " we are referring, because many of the variations are hardly similar enough to the original thing for me to even see the reasoning behind their terminology.
It seems, to me at least, a feeble attempt to preserve something that no longer is. Just as putting Greco-Roman pillars on the American White House can't save early Athenian democracy.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:43 pmNord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:48 pmThe Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?
No. Monarchy begets aristocracy, and aristocracy does absolutely nothing to insure the quality of government.
Secondly if one were to have a terrible ruler as an absolute authority there would be no way to get rid of him unless through coup or an assassination. Worse an entire line could be disgraceful. Imagine 50 years under a stupid tyrant, and then getting his son who is far worse?
My democracy may move slowly, but at least when an idiot puppet leader is elected we have eight years to put up with him at worse, and a long line of red tape and fillibuster to stop him from going completely batshit. I'll take it over an absolute monarchy any day.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:05 pmRutuba wrote:Nord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
That's because the word totalitarian is almost never used with regards to monarchies. They're called absolute monarchies instead.
(Repeat after me: The map is not the territory.)
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:07 pmRutuba wrote:Nord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
I agree?
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:30 pmIt could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:41 pmThe Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:42 pmDistruzio wrote:The Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
And in case you skipped out on Democracy 101, that's why it works better than a monarchy.
Checks and balances, division of power, etc. Go read a civics book.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:46 pmDistruzio wrote:The Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
Except that in democracies, you generally don't have a civil war over it.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:17 pm
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:21 pmForms like Constitutional Monarchy are alright I guess, although the monarch doesn't really do anything, which makes me think they are just there for the sake of being there. Also, depending on where you live they can be a bit of a money sink. Its like over here, the Windsors are more like paid celebrities that tour the country every now and then, and then fly back to the UK where they don't really do much either. Not to say I dislike the Windsors, or don't respect their contributions; but having them was the highest 'authority' figure in the nation doesn't make much sense when they do very little in regards to running the nation. Also our armed forces pledge allegiance to the monarch, which in the last 100 years has not been a very good concept.
Elective Monarchies can be looked at as okay, but from I can see its just aristocrats voting for other aristocrats, and then continuing on being an Absolute Monarchy, or whatever form they take. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall instances in the past where the peasants and burghers were called up to vote for a new monarch every x years.
Absolute Monarchies I find are completely incompatible with modern life. Usually people argue monarchies are more of a cultural thing nowadays, however that doesn't justify giving sole power to one person. Dictatorship is dictatorship, it doesn't matter what you call it. And from what results dictatorships have had this past century, I'd respectfully argue its something we could live without.
On an overall basis, I'd argue that Monarchies aren't really 'good' forms of government, however I guess with Constitutional Monarchies its country-specific. I'm a bit biased though, so there's that too.
Elective Monarchies can be looked at as okay, but from I can see its just aristocrats voting for other aristocrats, and then continuing on being an Absolute Monarchy, or whatever form they take. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall instances in the past where the peasants and burghers were called up to vote for a new monarch every x years.
Absolute Monarchies I find are completely incompatible with modern life. Usually people argue monarchies are more of a cultural thing nowadays, however that doesn't justify giving sole power to one person. Dictatorship is dictatorship, it doesn't matter what you call it. And from what results dictatorships have had this past century, I'd respectfully argue its something we could live without.
On an overall basis, I'd argue that Monarchies aren't really 'good' forms of government, however I guess with Constitutional Monarchies its country-specific. I'm a bit biased though, so there's that too.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:26 pmI feel like it should, but I find myself hating the Queens and Kings of all countries. Booing at Elizabeth every time I see her. She is probably a good person, but I loathe her greatly. I prefer a stripped down version of monarchs, dictators.
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:45 pmShaggai wrote:Distruzio wrote:
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
Except that in democracies, you generally don't have a civil war over it.
That's not endemic of monarchies. Quite the contrary. Consider:
Wiki Sez:
Civil wars since the end of World War II have lasted on average just over four years, a dramatic rise from the one-and-a-half year average of the 1900-1944 period. While the rate of emergence of new civil wars has been relatively steady since the mid-19th century, the increasing length of those wars resulted in increasing numbers of wars ongoing at any one time. For example, there were no more than five civil wars underway simultaneously in the first half of the 20th century while over 20 concurrent civil wars were occurring close to the end of the Cold War. Since 1945, civil wars have resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people, as well as the forced displacement of millions more. Civil wars have further resulted in economic collapse; Somalia, Burma (Myanmar), Uganda and Angola are examples of nations that were considered to have promising futures before being engulfed in civil wars.[4]
Shall we make the observation that monarchies were less prominent after the Second World War than prior to?
Further:
Wiki Sez:
Based on the 1000 casualties per year criterion, there were 213 civil wars from 1816 to 1997, 104 of which occurred from 1944 to 1997.[3] If one uses the less-stringent 1000 casualties total criterion, there were over 90 civil wars between 1945 and 2007, with 20 ongoing civil wars as of 2007.[1]
Further still:
Wiki Sez:
The power of non-state actors resulted in a lower value placed on sovereignty in the 18th and 19th centuries, which further reduced the number of civil wars. For example, the pirates of the Barbary Coast were recognized as de facto states because of their military power. The Barbary pirates thus had no need to rebel against the Ottoman Empire - their nominal state government - to gain recognition for their sovereignty. Conversely, states such as Virginia and Massachusetts in the United States of America did not have sovereign status, but had significant political and economic independence coupled with weak federal control, reducing the incentive to secede.[18]
The two major global ideologies, monarchism and democracy, led to several civil wars. However, a bi-polar world, divided between the two ideologies, did not develop, largely due to the dominance of monarchists through most of the period. The monarchists would thus normally intervene in other countries to stop democratic movements taking control and forming democratic governments, which were seen by monarchists as being both dangerous and unpredictable. The Great Powers (defined in the 1815 Congress of Vienna as the United Kingdom, Habsburg Austria, Prussia, France, and Russia) would frequently coordinate interventions in other nations' civil wars, nearly always on the side of the incumbent government. Given the military strength of the Great Powers, these interventions nearly always proved decisive and quickly ended the civil wars.[19]
The two major global ideologies, monarchism and democracy, led to several civil wars. However, a bi-polar world, divided between the two ideologies, did not develop, largely due to the dominance of monarchists through most of the period. The monarchists would thus normally intervene in other countries to stop democratic movements taking control and forming democratic governments, which were seen by monarchists as being both dangerous and unpredictable. The Great Powers (defined in the 1815 Congress of Vienna as the United Kingdom, Habsburg Austria, Prussia, France, and Russia) would frequently coordinate interventions in other nations' civil wars, nearly always on the side of the incumbent government. Given the military strength of the Great Powers, these interventions nearly always proved decisive and quickly ended the civil wars.[19]
So... it seems that the implication you are trying to present - that monarchy is inherently unstable - is spurious (at best). The truth is that with the decline of monarchy the rise in frequency of civil wars as well as an increase in their duration has accompanied the increased appeal of democracy.
Wiki even goes so far as to say:
This increase was a result of the increased number of states, the fragility of states formed after 1945, the decline in interstate war, and the Cold War rivalry.
Did the monarchies create more States? Or was that the result of decolonization and democratization?
Did monarchies create fragile national identity? Or was that the result of competing national interests suddenly given a voice in a democratic government?
Did monarchies create the Cold War? Or was that the result of two competing democratically founded economic and social ideologies arising?
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:27 amShaggai wrote:Rutuba wrote:Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
That's because the word totalitarian is almost never used with regards to monarchies. They're called absolute monarchies instead.
Absolute monarchies have little to do with totaliatarianism. They don't even have to be despotic in any way.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:30 amYes, it brings stability to a nation.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:53 amDepends on the type of monarchy. But usually yes.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:02 amThe Rich Port wrote:Distruzio wrote:
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
And in case you skipped out on Democracy 101, that's why it works better than a monarchy.
Checks and balances, division of power, etc. Go read a civics book.
I can't help but smile. Obstructionism is why democracy works better than monarchy? Haven't heard that defense of democracy yet.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:08 amThe Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?
Yes. When I'm the monarch.
Distruzionopolis wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
And in case you skipped out on Democracy 101, that's why it works better than a monarchy.
Checks and balances, division of power, etc. Go read a civics book.
I can't help but smile. Obstructionism is why democracy works better than monarchy? Haven't heard that defense of democracy yet.
Do I need to copy and paste my arguments again? I already told you that competition is what makes democracy great. Obstructionism is just part of it.
Although the alternative of obstructionism in monarchy are succession plots and intrigues.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:11 amNorstal wrote:Distruzionopolis wrote:
I can't help but smile. Obstructionism is why democracy works better than monarchy? Haven't heard that defense of democracy yet.
Do I need to copy and paste my arguments again? I already told you that competition is what makes democracy great. Obstructionism is just part of it.
Although the alternative of obstructionism in monarchy are succession plots and intrigues.
Indeed. I recall. I see that "competition" as another mark against it. Instability in government is, I now see, a manifest flaw.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:11 amWhy should a person have its life solved, and more power just becouse their parents were who they were? 
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:12 amMartean wrote:Why should a person have its life solved, and more power just becouse their parents were who they were?
Obviously Monarch will be chosen with vote among senators/elector princes. *nods*
Yes
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:14 amParliamentary monarchy of course, the royal family out of politics, just being a figurehead, not bad.
That or elective monarchy, but in which those who want to be head of state must had studied politics, law and order and such.
That or elective monarchy, but in which those who want to be head of state must had studied politics, law and order and such.