Why monarchy?

[CTALNH]

Levelers and Jacobins for life.

[Smig]

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?

No - I have no idea why people are monarchists. I'm an anti-monarchist, which is why I want a "no" option for the poll.

[Sebastianbourg]

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

No - I have no idea why people are monarchists. I'm an anti-monarchist, which is why I want a "no" option for the poll.

I'll quote the OP.

Frankly, the poll is just there to give me a vague idea of why the NSG monarchists are monarchists. While hearing the responses of republicans would be interesting it is ultimately not the purpose of this thread.

[The Derpy Republic]

It depends on the kind of monarchy. I am against an absolute monarchy, obviously, but I would support one if it were a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can have power so long as there is something that limits it.

[Sebastianbourg]

It depends on the kind of monarchy. I am against an absolute monarchy, obviously, but I would support one if it were a constitutional monarchy. The monarch can have power so long as there is something that limits it.

I think we've pretty much established absolute monarchy is not desirable in most situations.

[Martean]

I keep wondering why do monarchists assume a non-elected person (appointed by just one person, his father) would unite more, or be more representative of the country, than millions of votes.

And are you conscius that this is a genetic lottery, and that a full retard can go and become the king? This happened to Spain many times, and could have happened now, as the older daughter of the previous king was... let's say... not very bright, but as women can't be queens she wasn't raised to the throne, but it could all have been different.

[The Nihilistic view]

I keep wondering why do monarchists assume a non-elected person (appointed by just one person, his father) would unite more, or be more representative of the country, than millions of votes.

And are you conscius that this is a genetic lottery, and that a full retard can go and become the king? This happened to Spain many times, and could have happened now, as the older daughter of the previous king was... let's say... not very bright, but as women can't be queens she wasn't raised to the throne, but it could all have been different.

The Queen V David Cameron. Which has a higher approval rating?

[The Grim Reaper]

Is it just me or does the poll seem to have only one real answer on it?

At least, only one that is described in anything approaching a sensible light. The first can obviously be understood as a typical classical conservative position if expanded into viewing the monarchy as a traditional stable institution, and the second a neo-conservative one seeking to bolster the position of a wealthy or aristocratic property owner by bestowing cultural and traditional significance through a royal title.

[Martean]

I keep wondering why do monarchists assume a non-elected person (appointed by just one person, his father) would unite more, or be more representative of the country, than millions of votes.

And are you conscius that this is a genetic lottery, and that a full retard can go and become the king? This happened to Spain many times, and could have happened now, as the older daughter of the previous king was... let's say... not very bright, but as women can't be queens she wasn't raised to the throne, but it could all have been different.

The Queen V David Cameron. Which has a higher approval rating?

Which controls the government and is responsable of all cutbacks, and who just stays there to represent the "friendly" part of the state. (Olympic games, etc.)

It is normal she has a higher approal rating, she basically doesn't have to handle with the worst part of ruling a country

[Fortschritte]

I keep wondering why do monarchists assume a non-elected person (appointed by just one person, his father) would unite more, or be more representative of the country, than millions of votes.

And are you conscius that this is a genetic lottery, and that a full retard can go and become the king? This happened to Spain many times, and could have happened now, as the older daughter of the previous king was... let's say... not very bright, but as women can't be queens she wasn't raised to the throne, but it could all have been different.

The Queen V David Cameron. Which has a higher approval rating?

That's not the best argument for monarchy. Constitutional Monarchs are normally popular because they don't have to push legislation that nobody wants, they don't have to push austerity measures, they don't have to worry about the media criticizing their every move. All they have to do is be mildly charming and do a few things for charities and the like, and people will love them.

[The Nihilistic view]

The Queen V David Cameron. Which has a higher approval rating?

That's not the best argument for monarchy. Constitutional Monarchs are normally popular because they don't have to push legislation that nobody wants, they don't have to push austerity measures, they don't have to worry about the media criticizing their every move. All they have to do is be mildly charming and do a few things for charities and the like, and people will love them.

Totally missing the point. It's showing how elected politicians can be more divisive than monarchs. Monarchs do have the potential to be more unifying than politicians.

[Martean]

That's not the best argument for monarchy. Constitutional Monarchs are normally popular because they don't have to push legislation that nobody wants, they don't have to push austerity measures, they don't have to worry about the media criticizing their every move. All they have to do is be mildly charming and do a few things for charities and the like, and people will love them.

Totally missing the point. It's showing how elected politicians can be more divisive than monarchs. Monarchs do have the potential to be more unifying than politicians.

yeah, sure

[The Cobalt Sky]

Totally missing the point. It's showing how elected politicians can be more divisive than monarchs. Monarchs do have the potential to be more unifying than politicians.

yeah, sure

I agree. Monarchism can be facism sometimes.

[The Nihilistic view]

Totally missing the point. It's showing how elected politicians can be more divisive than monarchs. Monarchs do have the potential to be more unifying than politicians.

yeah, sure

Good strawman.

[Nervium]

Nobody answered because Disney.

I'm honestly dissapointed in this generation.

[Dinake]

The other reason this idea has soo much support IMHO, is many supporters envision themselves as either the ruler or as a noble. I think no one would support this style of government if they knew they were slotted to be a serf in a monarchy.

This argument arises from the fact that all republicanism springs from the politics of envy. The republican hates the monarch because they can never be the monarch, and it offends the republican's sense of entitlement that there is anything upon this Earth that they simply cannot have. This is the root of all egalitarian politics, and why the upper class are rarely socialist (although the rich capitalist in a modern monarchy is as likely as anyone else to be a republican, because they are offended that there is something all the money in the world can't buy them); each class has its own peculiar vices- envy in the lower class, avarice in the upper class, hence our politics in the modern day pit envy (the Left) against greed (the Right). But because the republican cannot fathom why anyone would desire to be subservient to anyone else, and assumes that all people must share their envious mindset, they assume that anyone who called themselves a monarchist must envisage themselves as becoming royalty or nobility under the new state; after all, why would anyone support a system where they weren't on top? As such, this argument can be readily dismissed as republicans projecting their own failings onto monarchists.

I live in a monarchy with an established aristocracy. I support the Queen, I support the hereditary peerage, and I have no illusions that I will ever be raised to the peerage. The last non-royal hereditary peerage was created in 1984, for Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton- a former Prime Minister. I highly doubt I will ever be lucky enough to be offered a hereditary peerage, and in the highly unlikely event I were offered a life peerage at some point, I would not accept it out of principle. The best I can hope for is maybe a knighthood some day, if I do something really special. In short, no, I do not support monarchism because I see myself becoming a lord. Not that I wouldn't like to be a lord, but just because I can't be one doesn't mean I want everyone else to be the same as me.

The claim that monarchists are only monarchists because they want to be monarchs is as ridiculous as the claim that republicans are only republicans because they want to be president, if not a bit more so.

[Estva]

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.

Bullshit. It is impossible for social mobility to be seriously considered in a state which enshrines its class system. It not only spits in the face of egalitarianism, but also meritocracy.

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,

The absolute most authoritarian revolutionaries, like Hamilton, at most believed in an elected monarch. They would not rule by hereditary or divine right, but by election. It did not "spawn from monarchy", because no one seriously believed in having a direct democracy when it could take months to collect ll the votes from everyone.

so they opted for a watered down monarchy. And now corporations and oligarchs are the monarchs of today.

They nowhere near approach monarchs. I honestly have to ask how you even came up with this comparison? Every rules has special interest groups on their side, including monarchs, whom themselves favored corporations during the 1800s.

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.

Except in your country both happens. You have a monarch who touted as more important than those dirty peasants while also having corporate oligarchs.

2) Funny, I didn't see the 300 incompetents that got voted into Germany back in 33 keeping Hitler from consolidating soul power.

I also do not see the Greek or Spanish monarchs from preventing dictatorships and repression. In fact, they outright supported them.

And by the way, I'm much more afraid of 300 men with a similar agenda then one man.

A foolish conception. I would be far more afraid of a Stalin than the Communist Party.

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.

Absolute monarchy has never existed outside of Sparta. Every monarch has had to ally with one segment of the population to get the support needed to rule voer the country.

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.

And in essence you believe the people are so stupid that not only can they not be trusted to rule over themselves, but cannot even be trusted with electing people to represent them.

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.

They sure as fuck do. If Labour tried to pass a law banning planes, precisely how easy of time would they have in the next election?

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.

If they value re-election they certainly have to pander to the voters. In the US, this is known as pork-barreling and is very common among the representatives.

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.

"Corporatist badgers" that monarchs have more than once proven to ally with.

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.

I refuted communism, not democracy.

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.

Your anti-Americanism is showing through pretty thick. You ignored most of what I said and instead resorted to painting a common stereotype of Americans. And before you said "I never SAID Americans", we both very well now what you meant.

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!

Because, clearly, your small town is evidence of the idiocy of the common public, and everything would just be better of we just got rid of that damned democracy!

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!

You know what happens when the democracy is gone? The exact same thing, except this time no one is challenging them because they are the authority.

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!

This is the definition of snobbery. You attempted to dodge the accusation and then outright proved it when you claimed the average vote if complete fucking idiot incapable of ruling himself. So it becomes rather clear you actually do support absolute monarchy, considering how much you have been lambasting the idea of democracy in all its incarnations.

*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.

His book, which was a national bestseller at the time, spent almost half its material detailing how the people are too incompetent to lead, and then gave instructions on how to exploit that.

Lenin came to power promising Land, Bread, and Security.

He created the idea of the Vanguard, which would be a Communist elite that rule in place of the ignorant peasants. This 'vanguard" idea is what first established the one-party state.

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.

Same story as Lenin really.

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.

Ah, yes, because monarchs and traditionalists never did this! That blind nationalism whipped by the Kaiser and his servants, the Tsar and his servants, and the Emperor and his servants was all just a fluke that never happens.

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.

As I said, every dictator has made the same argument as justification for their seizure of power.

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.

You have attacked all forms of democracy, despite calling yourself a constitutional monarchist. You certainly come off as an absolutist.

[The Orson Empire]

While democracy isn't perfect, it is much better than an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchies are simply not sustainable- it is inevitable that the monarchs will be corrupted and some kind of massive revolt will destroy it. This is why most of the world no longer has an absolute monarchy, and the countries that still do are hellholes to live in.

[Distruzio]

It is, aside from anarchy, the most moral form of government.

[Distruzio]

While democracy isn't perfect, it is much better than an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchies are simply not sustainable- it is inevitable that the monarchs will be corrupted and some kind of massive revolt will destroy it. This is why most of the world no longer has an absolute monarchy, and the countries that still do are hellholes to live in.

What is corruption?

What about democracy prevents corruption?

[Celibrae]

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

Illegal? it's not illegal to hold republican views, it's just surprising when someone holds those views because 99.9% of people in Britain love the Monarchy. They bring in tourist revenue and do other things...

Seriously, it could say "fuck the queen" right in front of a police officer and they would not do anything.

[Nervium]

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

Illegal? it's not illegal to hold republican views, it's just surprising when someone holds those views because 99.9% of people in Britain love the Monarchy. They bring in tourist revenue and do other things...

Seriously, it could say "fuck the queen" right in front of a police officer and they would not do anything.

I don't think it's actually 99%. More like, 70.

[Old Tyrannia]

Illegal? it's not illegal to hold republican views, it's just surprising when someone holds those views because 99.9% of people in Britain love the Monarchy. They bring in tourist revenue and do other things...

Seriously, it could say "fuck the queen" right in front of a police officer and they would not do anything.

I don't think it's actually 99%. More like, 70.

The Queen's approval rating is actually around 80%, IIRC.

[The Orson Empire]

While democracy isn't perfect, it is much better than an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchies are simply not sustainable- it is inevitable that the monarchs will be corrupted and some kind of massive revolt will destroy it. This is why most of the world no longer has an absolute monarchy, and the countries that still do are hellholes to live in.

What is corruption?

What about democracy prevents corruption?

The fact that democracy is controlled by the people helps to prevent one tyrannical monarch from completely fucking up the country.

[Celibrae]

I don't think it's actually 99%. More like, 70.

The Queen's approval rating is actually around 80%, IIRC.

Yeah, I exagerated a bit