NationStates

Removed because I wasn't very happy with how I wrote this post.

Dalcaria wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:How exactly would the monarch in this elective monarchy of yours be elected?

Well the first monarch him or herself would need to be straight up elected by the people, then they'd have to run a referendum that covers both a new constitution for the nation (a constitution not even the monarch may overrule) and whether people want the monarch candidate to be their monarch. If they say no, then he or she stays a regular politician and the system doesn't change. If they say yes, then he or she will become the monarch of the nation. Now, how monarchs are chosen in the future I'm still working on. I think the previous monarch could be a good judge of who could be the next monarch, but assuming there are reasons that may not work, a collaboration between parliament, all the important government and even non-government institutes in the nation, and the people themselves, could work together on deciding who is best to take up the crown next. Preferably it would be someone in the family, but if there is a better candidate outside, they may assume the throne as a sort of "Prince Regent" or something, until a more suitable heir from the family can be chosen.

Agreed.

Brillnuck wrote:

Fortschritte wrote:
Please, do explain.

Elective monarchies are monarchies, but they're not hereditary. The monarch would be elected every 5 years. There should also be a parliament so that the monarch doesn't go overboard.

That seems a bit pointless, to be frank. That sounds no different than directly electing some sort of ceremonial president, which makes a bit more sense.

-The West Coast- wrote:People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Monarchy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Dark Ages where most of the people living under a monarch were uneducated peasants and farmers. Now its nonsense with the advent of democracy and its popularity since the birth of the United States.

Indeed, the United States demonstrated amply that even uneducated peasants and farmers can have democracy.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Manisdog wrote:You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there

Here comes NSG's resident Anglophobe, Manisdog! FYI Manisdog, while it is technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy no-one has been tried for treason because of holding republican views since the mid-19th century. Yes, that law should be repealed but it's not like we throw all republicans in jail at Her Majesty's pleasure.

We fucking ought to, the bloody traitors.

Manisdog wrote:You must have been seeing the Pro-Britain lobby, my friend it is because they are taught that way and fed that crap since school, also it is illegal to hold republican views over there

There's a republic group in the UK. Why are you so Anglophobic? You know the French and the Portuguese also colonised India.

There's a real Republic group in the UK. It's just that the British population is quite monarchist.

When talking about monarchies in the current age, for the most part we are discussing constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not hold or wield much real power. Essentially the main difference between them is the political system itself, whether it be more Westminster or going along the more American system. I think if you have a Westminster system it is extremely valuable to have a monarch at the top rather than a president as is the case in Italy for example. My reasoning that having a primarily cultural and ceremonial figure who is apolitical and essentially far more difficult to corrupt if the system is set up right is better.

Of course, it also is pretty easy to see that whether or not you should support the monarchy comes down to the actual people involved in the monarch, the tradition of it and the tradition of the laws within the country. I think of Russia for example. If Russia had turned to the British system of constitutional governance when Tsar Alexander II had the chance to (he was killed early), not only could it have alleviated many issues of Russia then it could also have avoided the creation of the Soviet Union and the sham democracy that Putin rules over. Essentially the country has never gotten rid of autocracy and yet –if- the monarchy had reformed things when they had the chance, the country would have been far better off with a monarchy.

The United States on the other hand has been extremely successful with their model of government. So I think it really depends on the history of the country and the quality of the monarchy itself. A bad politician can be voted out or impeached, but the same cannot be said of a monarch. But if the monarch doesn’t have as much power it doesn’t matter as much.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

-The West Coast- wrote:People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Monarchy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Dark Ages where most of the people living under a monarch were uneducated peasants and farmers. Now its nonsense with the advent of democracy and its popularity since the birth of the United States.

People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Democracy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Darker Ages where most of the people living under a Democracy were uneducated Industrial Workers and Working class in general. Now its nonsense with the advent of Direct Democracy and its popularity since the birth of the Athens.

Thanks for turning my post into something that doesn't make sense.

-The West Coast- wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Democracy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Darker Ages where most of the people living under a Democracy were uneducated Industrial Workers and Working class in general. Now its nonsense with the advent of Direct Democracy and its popularity since the birth of the Athens.

Thanks for turning my post into something that doesn't make sense.

Next time don't try and pretend that modern democracy is not the few still making decisions for the many. It makes perfect sense if you aren't one of those people under that illusion.

The Austrians and Slovenes wrote:

Lalaki wrote:I come from a country with a strong republican tradition. What I find is that Americans tend to be united based on national identity and common ideals instead of a monarch.

Ultimately it is up to the nation and its culture whether or not there should be a monarchy. I would prefer that the US remains a republic (as we don't have a tradition of kings/queens and don't really need one for unity), but I am happy if another country decides differently.

America is divided between the conservatives and the so-called liberals. The monarchy provides a uniting figure beyond politics that the US doesn't have.

I live in a monarchy, and here the monarch has done everything but unite the people: the last time the CIS (national polling agency) asked about the question, the monarch didn't manage to even get a 4/10, and the day it snnounced its abdication, huge demonstrations aganist the monarchy and for the republic were held all around the country.

Monarchy doesn't unite, it just hides disenchantment with the monarch, (as he doesn't have to deal with elections) but this doesn't mean it unites.

Dalcaria wrote:All the problems Monarchy can or has made for people (including being an "affront" to the ideas of egalitarianism) can be said for communism and democracy too.

No, it really cannot. In democracy and communism you can indeed have a general fade of egalitarianism, but in a monarchy, it is outright stated and endorsed that there will always be a ruling family that is more important and entrenched then the rest of the populace.

Dalcaria wrote: Equality doesn't happen because of one system or another, it happens because the people in charge of a system run it into the ground. The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a Democracy is because you're just giving the powers of a monarch to 300 incompetents.

300 "incompetents" that must compete with each other for power, preventing any one of them from consolidating too much power. Meanwhile, in an absolute monarchy, you have an unrestrained monarch perfectly willing to build a state around them and for them. At least these "incompetents" must pander to the voters before they can pass anything too drastic.

Dalcaria wrote:The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a communist state is because the party (aka: the Red Bourgeoisie) can have essentially whatever they want for free, at the expense of the hard labor of the "proletariat" workers.

You misinterpret communism them, because the communist transitionary government is supposed to be a worker's demcoracy. Does this happen in reality? No, which is why I'm not a communist.

Dalcaria wrote: Equality comes from the hard work of people who make it happen, and it takes leaders for that, because unfortunately, mankind collectively is incapable of working together and making it happen themselves

This snobbish and pampered attitude is precisely what has lead to the rise of dictatorships. Every coup was to "protect the country from the tyranny of public will". Every generalissimo, dictator, and absolute monarch who have terrorized their people spouted this nonsense. The equality these individuals are supposed to deliver never comes.

Dalcaria wrote: (even on the small scale like the town I live in, anarchy could never work because nobody would be able to work together on anything. It's just impossible for people like this, and it's much the same in other places too).

And where, precisely, did I advocate anarchy?

Manisdog wrote:You know I am happy we got rid of those kings and queens for good, here is why monarchy plainly sucks


1) Royal prerogative gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive.
2)The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
3)The monarchy perpetuates the class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit
4) The monarchy makes it impossible to separate Church and State

It is why certain countries with a constitution monarchy, heck my ancestors fought to get rid of monarchy, good riddance

1. Ceremonial. If the Queen were to use this power with a democratically-elected, widely-loved Prime Minister there'd be a confidence that could force her to abdicate or even bring upon the abolition of the monarchy. However, this power which hasn't been used for a long time also grants the Sovereign the power to dismiss unpopular Prime Ministers.
2. Ceremonial. Refer to number 1.
3. Some people are born with benefits and privileges perceived to be unfair in republics. It is unrealistic to believe a society can be perfectly egalitarian. Besides, India has the caste system even though it's a republic and the monarchy has many benefits that can justify the ceremonial lack of egalitarianism. Oh, apart from the throne the UK is a relatively-egalitarian country.
4. Again this division is ceremonial although I agree, the Archbishop of Canterbury should be made the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in addition to being its primate. However, not all monarchies are based on leading or supporting the country's church.

Martean wrote:

The Austrians and Slovenes wrote:America is divided between the conservatives and the so-called liberals. The monarchy provides a uniting figure beyond politics that the US doesn't have.

I live in a monarchy, and here the monarch has done everything but unite the people: the last time the CIS (national polling agency) asked about the question, the monarch didn't manage to even get a 4/10, and the day it snnounced its abdication, huge demonstrations aganist the monarchy and for the republic were held all around the country.

Monarchy doesn't unite, it just hides disenchantment with the monarch, (as he doesn't have to deal with elections) but this doesn't mean it unites.

Since Felipe VI ascended to the throne the approval rate has grown immensely. Juan Carlos was an excellent king up to the last years of his reign; he just messed up at the end.

Brillnuck wrote:

Fortschritte wrote:
Please, do explain.

Elective monarchies are monarchies, but they're not hereditary. The monarch would be elected every 5 years. There should also be a parliament so that the monarch doesn't go overboard.

Frankly, that's just a quasi-ceremonial presidential system in which the president is titled king/queen.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Brillnuck wrote:Elective monarchies are monarchies, but they're not hereditary. The monarch would be elected every 5 years. There should also be a parliament so that the monarch doesn't go overboard.

Frankly, that's just a quasi-ceremonial presidential system in which the president is titled king/queen.

It depends who the pool of prospective Monarchs are really.

-The West Coast- wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
People have long preferred others thinking for them, so a Democracy was a great and easy form of government for centuries during the Darker Ages where most of the people living under a Democracy were uneducated Industrial Workers and Working class in general. Now its nonsense with the advent of Direct Democracy and its popularity since the birth of the Athens.

Thanks for turning my post into something that doesn't make sense.

Or something you can't counter

Sebastianbourg wrote:

Martean wrote:
I live in a monarchy, and here the monarch has done everything but unite the people: the last time the CIS (national polling agency) asked about the question, the monarch didn't manage to even get a 4/10, and the day it snnounced its abdication, huge demonstrations aganist the monarchy and for the republic were held all around the country.

Monarchy doesn't unite, it just hides disenchantment with the monarch, (as he doesn't have to deal with elections) but this doesn't mean it unites.

Since Felipe VI ascended to the throne the approval rate has grown immensely. Juan Carlos was an excellent king up to the last years of his reign; he just messed up at the end.

I wouldn't really believe that "poll" (to call it something), really.
What I know is that all polls have shown at least this 2 things:
1) The once overwhelming support for the monarchy has almost vanished, and it's not because of the crisis, as this is something that has been happening since the 1980's
2) Among the youth, support for the republic is, by far, bigger than support for the monarchy.

If we add to this that the monarchy is an institution known in Spain to be as corrupt as f*ck, even the most monarchist people I know, think the monarchy wont last more than 35 years.

Estva wrote:

Dalcaria wrote:All the problems Monarchy can or has made for people (including being an "affront" to the ideas of egalitarianism) can be said for communism and democracy too.

No, it really cannot. In democracy and communism you can indeed have a general fade of egalitarianism, but in a monarchy, it is outright stated and endorsed that there will always be a ruling family that is more important and entrenched then the rest of the populace.

Dalcaria wrote: Equality doesn't happen because of one system or another, it happens because the people in charge of a system run it into the ground. The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a Democracy is because you're just giving the powers of a monarch to 300 incompetents.

300 "incompetents" that must compete with each other for power, preventing any one of them from consolidating too much power. Meanwhile, in an absolute monarchy, you have an unrestrained monarch perfectly willing to build a state around them and for them. At least these "incompetents" must pander to the voters before they can pass anything too drastic.

Dalcaria wrote:The reason you won't see the equality for humans you want in a communist state is because the party (aka: the Red Bourgeoisie) can have essentially whatever they want for free, at the expense of the hard labor of the "proletariat" workers.

You misinterpret communism them, because the communist transitionary government is supposed to be a worker's demcoracy. Does this happen in reality? No, which is why I'm not a communist.

Dalcaria wrote: Equality comes from the hard work of people who make it happen, and it takes leaders for that, because unfortunately, mankind collectively is incapable of working together and making it happen themselves

This snobbish and pampered attitude is precisely what has lead to the rise of dictatorships. Every coup was to "protect the country from the tyranny of public will". Every generalissimo, dictator, and absolute monarch who have terrorized their people spouted this nonsense. The equality these individuals are supposed to deliver never comes.

Dalcaria wrote: (even on the small scale like the town I live in, anarchy could never work because nobody would be able to work together on anything. It's just impossible for people like this, and it's much the same in other places too).

And where, precisely, did I advocate anarchy?

1) Oh please! Saying "so and so is more important than everyone else" is no better than it being essentially true and never talked about. Plus tell me you support the Presidential system, I would be so giddy if you did! Do you know what the Presidential system was spawned out of? Monarchy, because American "revolutionaries" couldn't collectively agree upon being a straight up monarchy or democracy, so they opted for a watered down monarchy. And now corporations and oligarchs are the monarchs of today. Frankly I'd rather have someone toted around as being "more important" than a billionaire oil baron actually being catered to and made more important. Semantics is worthless to me in the face of what happens in reality.

2) Funny, I didn't see the 300 incompetents that got voted into Germany back in 33 keeping Hitler from consolidating soul power. And by the way, I'm much more afraid of 300 men with a similar agenda then one man. Also, who said I was supporting absolute monarchy? The system of monarchy I support is far from absolute. But even still, absolute monarchy had, in many ways, died out in the 1600's or so. Not completely, but Britain at least was already making it's way to a more half and half government. Speaking of which, I personally find that Great Britain and Canada (as well as other Commonwealth nations) are much safer having a monarch who can refuse to pass potentially dangerous laws, rather than leaving it in the hands of the 300 men we elected. It's much the same way as a President can veto some bills, though I'm not wholly sure how that works for him. Also, the incompetents don't have to "pander" anything once they've been elected. The only people they need to "pander" are (in Canada) the House of Commons, Senate, and the supreme court I believe (if something is unconstitutional), though I'm pretty sure the ruling party has input on whom is on the supreme court. And then the Governor General as well, who I'm not sure can or can't shut down a bill, though if they can (and I'm hoping they can), then good, one more way our "outdated monarch" is able to keep corporatist badgers from selling off our country at a loss.

3) And that is exactly what we're talking about, reality. And the reality is that Democracy and Communism, the systems "dedicated" to equality are not as dedicated as they want the masses to believe. Of course, it's easy to make people believe they're free when you put a burger in their hand and gas in their SUV, or to make them think they're free when you show them movies of how the West is "burning" and everyone is suffering from the evils of capitalism.

4) Snobbish and pampered? Don't be so naive! I live in a small town with it's own website dedicated to the "issues" pertaining to the area, and it's an absolute gong show! People make irrational arguments that most NSers would puke having to read! Their evidence is based on here-say and who's friends with who! And their "solutions" are worse than what someone half, or a third, or a fourth their age can come up with! Snobbish? OPEN YOUR EYES! People don't care about politics or understand it, this is something most people even ADMIT to! And this isn't about "freeing them from themselves", it's about actually RUNNING the country, something they know nothing about! *gasp* Great surprise there! And no, not every dictator came to power that way, do some basic research. Hitler came to power promising glory and stability for the German people. Lenin came to power promising Land, Bread, and Security. Mao came to power offering basically the same, but played on the simple minds of the people to work them up into uproarious mini-revolutions to keep the nation under his thumb. None of them spouted my "nonsense", because it's easier to manipulate people by getting them worked up and emotional, because people who already have a tenuous grasp of reality make the most easily manipulable little puppets. And yes, for the record, democracy does much the same thing! Pointing out that the people have no idea how to run a country isn't snobbish, it's the harsh reality they don't want to hear, and the people in power don't want to be said. A people who is aware they were made puppets are much harder to control.

5) I didn't say you did advocate anarchy, I'm covering all the bases. Some people believe democracy is the freest system, some think it's communism, and some think it's one of the many forms of anarchy. They're all flawed in essence, just as much as absolute monarchy. Hence why I'm not an absolute monarchist, I'm a realist.

I have no idea.
Add a "no" option to the poll.

Brillnuck wrote:

Dalcaria wrote:Well the first monarch him or herself would need to be straight up elected by the people, then they'd have to run a referendum that covers both a new constitution for the nation (a constitution not even the monarch may overrule) and whether people want the monarch candidate to be their monarch. If they say no, then he or she stays a regular politician and the system doesn't change. If they say yes, then he or she will become the monarch of the nation. Now, how monarchs are chosen in the future I'm still working on. I think the previous monarch could be a good judge of who could be the next monarch, but assuming there are reasons that may not work, a collaboration between parliament, all the important government and even non-government institutes in the nation, and the people themselves, could work together on deciding who is best to take up the crown next. Preferably it would be someone in the family, but if there is a better candidate outside, they may assume the throne as a sort of "Prince Regent" or something, until a more suitable heir from the family can be chosen.

Agreed.

Thank you!

Martean wrote:If we add to this that the monarchy is an institution known in Spain to be as corrupt as f*ck, even the most monarchist people I know, think the monarchy wont last more than 35 years.

Who knows? We might have some bizarre revolution tomorrow or Felipe VI might have an extraordinary reign that'll restore the monarchy's honour and prestige.

Why is there not I am not a monarchist option? Your like alienating 90%+ of NSG man.

The Austrians and Slovenes wrote:I've been a lurker on this forum for a while and somehow I've managed to resit the urge to register and post. I've noticed there's a large number of monarchists (along with people with other eccentric political opinions).

When one looks-up 'benefits of monarchy' on Google one will be surprised at how many websites seem to have articles dedicated to this relatively-obscure subject. They all tell us the same thing; monarchies unite the people with the personification of the nation (the monarch) which is independent of politics and may cost less than ceremonial presidencies while serving as permanent (or long-term) ambassadors of the country and its people. Generally, I tend to sympathise with monarchies just because of possibly-anachronistic sentimentalism (and not because of the reasons presented above) but I'd like to know what the monarchist members and denizens of NSG have to say on why they support the aforementioned system of government.

I know there is no thread ownership in the NSG but I wouldn't like this thread to simply criticize or praise monarchies blindly; I want to know why NSG's monarchist are in fact monarchists. The arguments for a republic are quite repetitive and obvious so unless you've got an argument for a republic which you think will be unknown to the majority I'd recommend you don't post.

Because its more prestigious than being a dictator like kim jong un.

Smig wrote:I have no idea.
Add a "no" option to the poll.

You're a monarchist but don't have a particular reason for being one?

CTALNH wrote:Why is there not I am not a monarchist option? Your like alienating 90%+ of NSG man.

Probably because the thread itself is more geared towards those who are in fact monarchists. It may be alienating people, but only because the thread probably isn't meant for them. Now I could be wrong on that, perhaps the OP does want to hear from those who aren't monarchists, but that's not really how he seemed to put it. I myself didn't vote for any of the options though because none of them truly embody why I'm a monarchist, or even what kind of a monarchist I am.