Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Conserative Morality]

Revolutionary sentiment is strongest when people suffer. When people suffer, they want change. That's not rocket science. They also have a tendency to look for scapegoats, which might be the King or might be the Jews, depending on who is most convenient to blame at the time.

Republican sentiment isn't the same as revolutionary sentiment. Republican sentiment can wax and wane within a republic; revolutionary sentiment can exist without republican sentiment. How many generations under the ancien regime were tormented before they rose up and overthrew their masters? How many suffering peasants revolted against Revolutionary France?

In order to suffer, one must not be inured to hardship. Hardship alone doesn't create republican sentiment - only suffering does. This is why the great masses of oppressed peasants were not the wellspring of the French Revolution. They had been inured to hardship. It was the urban sans-cullotes who suffered. They who were unused to repression and starvation. They didn't revolt for lower taxes or the restoration of rights, as so many peasant revolts before had done. They wanted blood. They wanted the blood of aristocrats and kings. And as the ineffectual absolutist (And then constitutional) monarchy of France continued to fail to relieve this suffering, more and more of them called for it.

As they suffered under the revolutionary governments, they didn't call for the monarchy to return. On the contrary, they volunteered to suffer more - in the armies, in the fields, in the view of political repression. It was the relative prosperity of Napoleon's early reign that lessened republican sentiment. It was the relative lack of suffering that caused the people of France to clamor for Napoleon's crowning.

[Celritannia]

I just don't agree with the concept of the nation-state any more.

If so, what alternative method of social organisation would you propose?

Well at the moment, especially with the UK, you need to alter the political system. Secondly, the idea of nationalism needs to be removed, we are all human, and we should recognise that.

As for the political system I wish to see? A technocratic society with an Arbitrator appointed by a Grand Council which in turn would be a public sortation of people with a specific level of IQ.

Local/regional/provincial governments would still be elected by all members of society, but the overall government for a country would be appointed.

Also, more referendums need to occur and less of a business orientated society.

[Fezkovia]

Possibly, if there is a Parliament to force the King to abdicate if he's becoming too bad.

[Distruzio]

Oh, is that how it works? Magic?

No, Dilution.

Got it. Magic.

[Distruzio]

Well, it would appear that we have uncovered the basic difference between monarchists and republicans.

Monarchists believe that loyalty is healthy, and republicans believe that envy is healthy. It all makes perfect sense.

is that a royal we?

No it's a common sense "we".

[The UK in Exile]

is that a royal we?

No it's a common sense "we".

ah well, you're common people so its to be expected.

No, Dilution.

Got it. Magic.

if you think dilution is magic. sure.

[Benuty]

But if humans really are so irresponsible, what's more likely- one person turning out to be responsible, or a majority of people turning out to be responsible? Why is one tyrant worse than a thousand or a million?

Democracy is homeopathic Monarchy, it takes something incredibly dangerous and dilutes millions of times until it can't do any real damage.

That is an absurd example .

[The UK in Exile]

Democracy is homeopathic Monarchy, it takes something incredibly dangerous and dilutes millions of times until it can't do any real damage.

That is an absurd example .

Its a metaphor. its an absurd metaphor, but then, its an absurd subject.

[Distruzio]

No it's a common sense "we".

ah well, you're common people so its to be expected.

Got it. Magic.

if you think dilution is magic. sure.

I don't think it is. You do.

[The UK in Exile]

ah well, you're common people so its to be expected.



if you think dilution is magic. sure.

I don't think it is. You do.

I think its the process of making something weaker or less concentrated. Which would seem to have relevance in a discussion about the centralization of power into a single excutive figure. But I could be wrong, maybe I do think its magic....

[Distruzio]

I don't think it is. You do.

I think its the process of making something weaker or less concentrated. Which would seem to have relevance in a discussion about the centralization of power into a single excutive figure. But I could be wrong, maybe I do think its magic....

Indeed. That's the magical bit.

You aren't arguing that the power be diluted at all, unless you're a supporter of confederalism/anarchism. You are arguing that the power be distributed rather than dispersed. Somehow, in your mind, you confuse distribution for dispersion.

That's magic.

[The UK in Exile]

I think its the process of making something weaker or less concentrated. Which would seem to have relevance in a discussion about the centralization of power into a single excutive figure. But I could be wrong, maybe I do think its magic....

Indeed. That's the magical bit.

You aren't arguing that the power be diluted at all, unless you're a supporter of confederalism/anarchism. You are arguing that the power be distributed rather than dispersed. Somehow, in your mind, you confuse distribution for dispersion.

That's magic.

when your distributing it to people who don't agree and actively work against each other, its both. but thanks for the the pendantry.

I guess the magic was inside us all along.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. That's the magical bit.

You aren't arguing that the power be diluted at all, unless you're a supporter of confederalism/anarchism. You are arguing that the power be distributed rather than dispersed. Somehow, in your mind, you confuse distribution for dispersion.

That's magic.

when your distributing it to people who don't agree and actively work against each other, its both. but thanks for the the pendantry.

I guess the magic was inside us all along.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you under the impression that representative democracies empower the people to have a say in the actions of government? You may want to revisit poli sci.

[British Prussia]

The thing with a constitutional monarchy is, when the government or the people become f**ked, there's always the monarchy to fall back on to be the voice of reason, works vice versa if it operates like a constitutional monarchy. Whereas if its absolute monarchy or republican democracy, you get what you're given, and you can't really do that much about it until the end of the term, or the succession.

But of course, you have to balance the power between government and the monarchy just so.

[Distruzio]

The thing with a constitutional monarchy is, when the government or the people become f**ked, there's always the monarchy to fall back on to be the voice of reason, works vice versa if it operates like a constitutional monarchy. Whereas if its absolute monarchy or republican democracy, you get what you're given, and you can't really do that much about it until the end of the term, or the succession.

But of course, you have to balance the power between government and the monarchy just so.

Where do you stand on executivism and ceremonialism? Do you think the monarch should have executive authority or should they be a blank check?

I favor executivism.

[British Prussia]

The thing with a constitutional monarchy is, when the government or the people become f**ked, there's always the monarchy to fall back on to be the voice of reason, works vice versa if it operates like a constitutional monarchy. Whereas if its absolute monarchy or republican democracy, you get what you're given, and you can't really do that much about it until the end of the term, or the succession.

But of course, you have to balance the power between government and the monarchy just so.

Where do you stand on executivism and ceremonialism? Do you think the monarch should have executive authority or should they be a blank check?

I favor executivism.

the monarchy should have some executive power, but not too much, as well as ceremonial roles as well. a monarchy which is completely ceremonial, really, is pretty much a republican democracy. ie victor emmanuel ii did nothing to stop the fascists, but if he had a little more power, i'm sure he would've tried.