Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Norstal]

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.

Competition isn't necessarily instability. Competition is one of the foundation of evolutionary biology, alongside cooperation, and to simply dismiss it is outright dangerous. How else are you going to get the best of ideas?

[Martean]

Parliamentary 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.

If the king it's not going to have any power, why paying it?

[Distruzionopolis]

Indeed. I recall. I see that "competition" as another mark against it. Instability in government is, I now see, a manifest flaw.

Competition isn't necessarily instability. Competition is one of the foundation of evolutionary biology, alongside cooperation, and to simply dismiss it is outright dangerous. How else are you going to get the best of ideas?

Are you suggesting that evolutionary biology is a discipline that applies to political science?

[Norstal]

Competition isn't necessarily instability. Competition is one of the foundation of evolutionary biology, alongside cooperation, and to simply dismiss it is outright dangerous. How else are you going to get the best of ideas?

Are you suggesting that evolutionary biology is a discipline that applies to political science?

No? I am saying it's something you can't get rid of and isn't always negative considering it's embedded in our very nature.

[Gyrenaica]

Yes, but not absolute monarchy.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

This thread is still going on?

How does anyone believe divine right is the best route to take? Ridiculous, and no, a constitutional monarchy is not a "monarchy," its a democracy.

[Distruzionopolis]

Are you suggesting that evolutionary biology is a discipline that applies to political science?

No? I am saying it's something you can't get rid of and isn't always negative considering it's embedded in our very nature.

I agree? Note that I've never argued for the creation of a unitary State. So, of course, I'm not arguing that democracy be prohibited. I'm arguing that monarchy is a good form of government.

[Martean]

This thread is still going on?

How does anyone believe divine right is the best route to take? Ridiculous, and no, a constitutional monarchy is not a "monarchy," its a democracy.

I think the question is whether you prefer a democratic monarchy or a democratic republic. It's a debate open in many countries -_o_-

[The Rich Port]

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.

Yes, actually.

Opposition breeds new viewpoints and ideas, points out errors one party may not realize about a social issue.

Single party states have a consistent record of shit human and civil rights than a multi-party state.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Monarchy has its benefits, but it needs to be mixed with some democratic institutions to keep the monarch accountable and prevent them from abusing their power.

[Distruzionopolis]

Indeed. I recall. I see that "competition" as another mark against it. Instability in government is, I now see, a manifest flaw.

Yes, actually.

Opposition breeds new viewpoints and ideas, points out errors one party may not realize about a social issue.

Single party states have a consistent record of shit human and civil rights than a multi-party state.

Indeed. Which is another tick against democracy - single party or otherwise.

[The House of Xavier]

Yeah, because it worked out so well in Europe. #Charles I # Louis XVI

[Distruzionopolis]

Yeah, because it worked out so well in Europe. #Charles I # Louis XVI

How about Queen Elizabeth, King Willem Alexander, King Filipe VI, or countless others who don't rule as authoritarians?

The question is whether monarchy is a good form of government. It isn't a question of whether there have been dick monarchs.

[The House of Xavier]

Yeah, because it worked out so well in Europe. #Charles I # Louis XVI

How about Queen Elizabeth, King Willem Alexander, King Filipe VI, or countless others who don't rule as authoritarians?

The question is whether monarchy is a good form of government. It isn't a question of whether there have been dick monarchs.

Notable exceptions, because they have been few in number. Most monarchs have been inept, inbreds. There's no merit to monarchies because being the child, grand child, etc. of some great leader doesn't mean that person will lead well.

[Laerod]

Yeah, because it worked out so well in Europe. #Charles I # Louis XVI

How about Queen Elizabeth, King Willem Alexander, King Filipe VI, or countless others who don't rule as authoritarians?

The question is whether monarchy is a good form of government. It isn't a question of whether there have been dick monarchs.

None of those rule in any reasonable sense of the word, and some of them don't have more than a year to their name. Unless you meant Queen Elizabeth I, in which case not calling her authoritarian is quite a stretch.

[Ragnarum]

Practically speaking, an absolute monarchy is a fancy dictatorship.

How the country is run is entirely dependent on said monarch.

[Distruzionopolis]

How about Queen Elizabeth, King Willem Alexander, King Filipe VI, or countless others who don't rule as authoritarians?

The question is whether monarchy is a good form of government. It isn't a question of whether there have been dick monarchs.

Notable exceptions, because they have been few in number.

Few in number? They rule nations where the fewest republican revolutions occurred. Their families have, traditionally, been more liberal and more progressive than the two examples you offered. It's rather silly to respond to counter examples with, "yeah, sure. But the others are mostly dicks!"

You provided examples of dickery. I countered. If you choose to make a generalized comment about monarchism, that's one thing. But when you choose to make a generalized comment about monarchism with specific examples and respond to a counter with, "yeah but...", thats a fallacy.

Most monarchs have been inept, inbreds. There's no merit to monarchies because being the child, grand child, etc. of some great leader doesn't mean that person will lead well.

Inept? Hardly. Monarchism has perpetuated for how many centuries? That alone testifies to the ability of monarchism to be quite apt at addressing and redressing grievances. It's a political philosophy that has shown that it can evolve and change to accommodate the needs and desires of countless generations of people. Democracy is the new kid on the block, historically speaking. The history of the 20th century, the century of democracy, shows just how inflexible democracy can be - is, even.

Inbred? Sure. That happens. Inbreeding creates issues. But how many contemporary monarchs are inbred? And what does the lack of inbreeding in the centuries since the abolition of feudal society suggest about the potential for continued monarchical inbreeding? It suggests that, having evolved beyond feudal social order, inbreeding no long exemplifies monarchism.

On the contrary, if we look at the basic premise of democracy - nepotism, then we find that inbreeding's cousin (nepotism) is just as destructive to the social fabric as inbreeding itself was.

So what does that tell us? That monarchism is, at it's most basic, a form of government that can and does change. Democracy, on the other hand, stagnates into obstructionism (where it is representative), authoritarianism (where it is idealized), and democide (where it is identified as the pillar of human development).

What you'll find is that few of us who are genuine adherents of monarchism trumpet about how evil democracy is. What you'll find is that we often articulate the position that monarchy, for all it's flaws, does better than democracy at perpetuating a national identity - which is among our primary concerns. When the monarchy is abolish, the national identity is lost. When a democracy is abolished, the national what is lost? Nothing. Democracy can lose nothing because she offers nothing to the nation. Democratic evolution into despotism is inevitable. Monarchic despotism is an exception.

[Distruzionopolis]

How about Queen Elizabeth, King Willem Alexander, King Filipe VI, or countless others who don't rule as authoritarians?

The question is whether monarchy is a good form of government. It isn't a question of whether there have been dick monarchs.

None of those rule in any reasonable sense of the word

I'm sorry. But were we discussing "rule" or were we discussing the inherent value of monarchy?

You can't just pick and choose different parameters for the discussion the moment a counter is posited and expect to offer anything of value to the conversation.

The question was "is monarchy a good form of government." It was not, "is monarchy a good form of government in which the monarch actually rules something by some measurement."

I mean, are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? No? Well then I submit that they must, indeed, be relevant to political discourse. Specifically that discourse requested in this thread.

[Laerod]

None of those rule in any reasonable sense of the word

I'm sorry. But were we discussing "rule" or were we discussing the inherent value of monarchy?

You can't just pick and choose different parameters for the discussion the moment a counter is posited and expect to offer anything of value to the conversation.

The question was "is monarchy a good form of government." It was not, "is monarchy a good form of government in which the monarch actually rules something by some measurement."

Dude. DUDE. Constitutional monarchies are essentially Republics with slightly different rules for heads of state. There's no point in debating whether one is better than the other because they're virtually the same.

I mean, are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? No? Well then I submit that they must, indeed, be relevant to political discourse. Specifically that discourse requested in this thread.

Are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? Pretty much! Look at Elizabeth II in Scotland!

[Distruzionopolis]

I'm sorry. But were we discussing "rule" or were we discussing the inherent value of monarchy?

You can't just pick and choose different parameters for the discussion the moment a counter is posited and expect to offer anything of value to the conversation.

The question was "is monarchy a good form of government." It was not, "is monarchy a good form of government in which the monarch actually rules something by some measurement."

Dude. DUDE. Constitutional monarchies are essentially Republics with slightly different rules for heads of state. There's no point in debating whether one is better than the other because they're virtually the same.

No. They're not. You're confusing a crowned republic for a monarchy. Beyond that, you don't do much to dispel my critique. "Rule" was not mentioned. It hasn't been mentioned except by those who, rather ironically, undermine their own assertions that monarchy is bad. If we assume that contemporary monarchies are "essentially republics with slightly different rules for heads of state" then we find ourselves confronted with the reality that democratist bleatings about how "bad" monarchy is are rather... flaccid.

If contemporary monarchs wield no power, then why all the fuss about their existence?

I'll tell you why - it's because democratists have no idea what they're talking about. They're just blathering on incoherently and content with their own intellectual superiority which is, itself, another example of irony rife in this discussion.

I mean, are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? No? Well then I submit that they must, indeed, be relevant to political discourse. Specifically that discourse requested in this thread.

Are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? Pretty much! Look at Elizabeth II in Scotland!

Oh, I'm sorry, is the potential Scottish independence also a plebiscite reconsidering the Head of State? No. It isn't. Regardless, that is, yet again, an example of exactly what I was talking about.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Dude. DUDE. Constitutional monarchies are essentially Republics with slightly different rules for heads of state. There's no point in debating whether one is better than the other because they're virtually the same.

No. They're not. You're confusing a crowned republic for a monarchy. Beyond that, you don't do much to dispel my critique. "Rule" was not mentioned. It hasn't been mentioned except by those who, rather ironically, undermine their own assertions that monarchy is bad. If we assume that contemporary monarchies are "essentially republics with slightly different rules for heads of state" then we find ourselves confronted with the reality that democratist bleatings about how "bad" monarchy is are rather... flaccid.

If contemporary monarchs wield no power, then why all the fuss about their existence?

I'll tell you why - it's because democratists have no idea what they're talking about. They're just blathering on incoherently and content with their own intellectual superiority which is, itself, another example of irony rife in this discussion.

Are these contemporary monarchs absent from the political process? Pretty much! Look at Elizabeth II in Scotland!

Oh, I'm sorry, is the potential Scottish independence also a plebiscite reconsidering the Head of State? No. It isn't. Regardless, that is, yet again, an example of exactly what I was talking about.

A crowned republic is still a monarchy.

[Kingdom of Derita]

Yes

[Distruzionopolis]

No. They're not. You're confusing a crowned republic for a monarchy. Beyond that, you don't do much to dispel my critique. "Rule" was not mentioned. It hasn't been mentioned except by those who, rather ironically, undermine their own assertions that monarchy is bad. If we assume that contemporary monarchies are "essentially republics with slightly different rules for heads of state" then we find ourselves confronted with the reality that democratist bleatings about how "bad" monarchy is are rather... flaccid.

If contemporary monarchs wield no power, then why all the fuss about their existence?

I'll tell you why - it's because democratists have no idea what they're talking about. They're just blathering on incoherently and content with their own intellectual superiority which is, itself, another example of irony rife in this discussion.



Oh, I'm sorry, is the potential Scottish independence also a plebiscite reconsidering the Head of State? No. It isn't. Regardless, that is, yet again, an example of exactly what I was talking about.

A crowned republic is still a monarchy.

Indeed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A crowned republic is still a monarchy.

Indeed.

Monarchy isn't inherently bad, but an absolute one doesn't make as much sense in a society with a higher standard of living relative to the rest of the world.

[Zelacraux]

Monarchy isn't always bad. I mean a lot of the absolute rulers were really rude and arrogant but some of them actually did things that helped their countries.
Louis the fourteenth. I know he was a real jerk to his servants and he was definitely one of those rulers that expected people to treat him like a freaking God BUT he made France a HUGE center of attention in the world with the arts and museums and all of that other fun stuff. It became a HUGE cultural center BECAUSE of him. Would France be the way it is now if it weren't for him? I personally don't think so.