Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[Isilanka]

I wish we had installed a Hohenzollern as King of America, as was suggested about the time of the adoption of the United States.

Not gonna lie, that alternative makes me wistful.

The land is their property, not the country. The State (and the affairs concerning it, i.e. the things under debate in suffrage) is not.
And no. You shouldn't need to own part of the land to make decisions regarding what happens to you. That isn't too hard to comprehend.

The country is the land. This country is divided from that country by territorial lines. If you live on someone else's land, you can't claim a right to rule them anymore than you could over your parents if you lived with them still. Doubly so if you don't even pay rent.

No, the country is not the land. It's much more than that. It's the people living and working on the land, it's the natural resources on this land and the way they're used, it's the infrastructure, it's the political forces at work on the land, it's the political system this land is administrated by, it's its institutions, it's the state ruling over it and enforcing legislation. The country has never been just the land. It's not only the sum of those who own land on it.
The ground, the soil is a common object. The moment people who don't own the land are affected by what happens on my land, I can't possibly be the only one to decide what happens on my land. At the local level, that's why we have laws to say what you can and can't do on and with your land. At the general level, that's why even those who don't own the land of the country wote to decide what happens on it.

Borders are imaginary lines drawn on a map, they don't correspond to anything real, wether they are national or regional or whatever border. It's utterly naive, especially in our current world, to think that what happens on a land will magically stop at the border. If I have polluting factories on my land, they'll pollute the other lands I don't own. If I have agricultural fields on my lands, people who libe elsewhere may depend on it for food and work. If I stockpile waste in my land, it can pollute the river that goes through the neighbouring lands, and so on and so on, and this is not even covering the extreme complexity of land in urban areas.

In capitalistic countries, the state has no say in your own property, and can't take your land for no reason. That's why we have legislation to tell people what they can and can't do on their land and with their property as a whole. And as soon as what you do on your land affects other lands, or people living and working on your land, it's totally legitimate to collectively decide legislation. Just because you don't own a land doesn't mean you don't have any responsibility towards it. What matters is the land you live on, are affected by and feel part of. It's not a small piece of paper that only has a legal meaning.

[The Parkus Empire]

Not gonna lie, that alternative makes me wistful.




The country is the land. This country is divided from that country by territorial lines. If you live on someone else's land, you can't claim a right to rule them anymore than you could over your parents if you lived with them still. Doubly so if you don't even pay rent.

No, the country is not the land. It's much more than that. It's the people living and working on the land, it's the natural resources on this land and the way they're used, it's the infrastructure, it's the political forces at work on the land, it's the political system this land is administrated by, it's its institutions, it's the state ruling over it and enforcing legislation. The country has never been just the land. It's not only the sum of those who own land on it.
The ground, the soil is a common object. The moment people who don't own the land are affected by what happens on my land, I can't possibly be the only one to decide what happens on my land. At the local level, that's why we have laws to say what you can and can't do on and with your land. At the general level, that's why even those who don't own the land of the country wote to decide what happens on it.

Borders are imaginary lines drawn on a map, they don't correspond to anything real, wether they are national or regional or whatever border. It's utterly naive, especially in our current world, to think that what happens on a land will magically stop at the border. If I have polluting factories on my land, they'll pollute the other lands I don't own. If I have agricultural fields on my lands, people who libe elsewhere may depend on it for food and work. If I stockpile waste in my land, it can pollute the river that goes through the neighbouring lands, and so on and so on, and this is not even covering the extreme complexity of land in urban areas.

In capitalistic countries, the state has no say in your own property, and can't take your land for no reason. That's why we have legislation to tell people what they can and can't do on their land and with their property as a whole. And as soon as what you do on your land affects other lands, or people living and working on your land, it's totally legitimate to collectively decide legislation. Just because you don't own a land doesn't mean you don't have any responsibility towards it. What matters is the land you live on, are affected by and feel part of. It's not a small piece of paper that only has a legal meaning.

If landholding is an imperfect, even largely imperfect qualification to rule others, simply being over eighteen is no qualification all.

[Isilanka]

No, the country is not the land. It's much more than that. It's the people living and working on the land, it's the natural resources on this land and the way they're used, it's the infrastructure, it's the political forces at work on the land, it's the political system this land is administrated by, it's its institutions, it's the state ruling over it and enforcing legislation. The country has never been just the land. It's not only the sum of those who own land on it.
The ground, the soil is a common object. The moment people who don't own the land are affected by what happens on my land, I can't possibly be the only one to decide what happens on my land. At the local level, that's why we have laws to say what you can and can't do on and with your land. At the general level, that's why even those who don't own the land of the country wote to decide what happens on it.

Borders are imaginary lines drawn on a map, they don't correspond to anything real, wether they are national or regional or whatever border. It's utterly naive, especially in our current world, to think that what happens on a land will magically stop at the border. If I have polluting factories on my land, they'll pollute the other lands I don't own. If I have agricultural fields on my lands, people who libe elsewhere may depend on it for food and work. If I stockpile waste in my land, it can pollute the river that goes through the neighbouring lands, and so on and so on, and this is not even covering the extreme complexity of land in urban areas.

In capitalistic countries, the state has no say in your own property, and can't take your land for no reason. That's why we have legislation to tell people what they can and can't do on their land and with their property as a whole. And as soon as what you do on your land affects other lands, or people living and working on your land, it's totally legitimate to collectively decide legislation. Just because you don't own a land doesn't mean you don't have any responsibility towards it. What matters is the land you live on, are affected by and feel part of. It's not a small piece of paper that only has a legal meaning.

If landholding is an imperfect, even largely imperfect qualification to rule others, simply being over eighteen is no qualification all.

Qualifications that are actually detrimental to those who don't own land are worse than no qualification.

[The Parkus Empire]

If landholding is an imperfect, even largely imperfect qualification to rule others, simply being over eighteen is no qualification all.

Qualifications that are actually detrimental to those who don't own land are worse than no qualification.

"Qualifications that exclude anyone are worse than no qualifications."

That's a very nifty piece of tautology you pulled off, considering qualifications are by definition exclusive.

[Isilanka]

Qualifications that are actually detrimental to those who don't own land are worse than no qualification.

"Qualifications that exclude anyone are worse than no qualifications."

That's a very nifty piece of tautology you pulled off, considering qualifications are by definition exclusive.

I should explain myself better.
What I meant was that to me, I don't see how landowners would be commited to the common good. That's the meaning of my sentence. I think owning land is a qualification that's actively detrimental to those who don't own land because I don't see how their interests would automatically align with what's better for society as a whole, not because it's a qualification.

Ideally I'd love to be ruled by rational, intelligent, well-educated, enlightened elites but I don't see any system that would realistically produce such elites with a guarantee of sucess.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Qualifications that exclude anyone are worse than no qualifications."

That's a very nifty piece of tautology you pulled off, considering qualifications are by definition exclusive.

I should explain myself better.
What I meant was that to me, I don't see how landowners would commited to be common good. That's the meaning of my sentence. I think owning land is a qualification that's actively detrimental to those who don't own land because I don't see how their interests would automatically align with what's better for society as a whole, not because it's a qualification.

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

[Isilanka]

I should explain myself better.
What I meant was that to me, I don't see how landowners would commited to be common good. That's the meaning of my sentence. I think owning land is a qualification that's actively detrimental to those who don't own land because I don't see how their interests would automatically align with what's better for society as a whole, not because it's a qualification.

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

That requires some pretty enlightened and responsible landowners, honestly.
And there's always the risk that they only care about their own land. Most people are extremely short-sighted. "Not my land, not my problem" is a suicidal behavior on the long run and yet many people think that way, i'm afraid owning land can only further reinforce that.

A good example is with people who own agricultural lands. You'd expect them to think about the future and to vote responsibly to make sure their land will remain fertile and usable in the long run. And yet in Europe agricultural lobbies have spent the last decades advocating for more pesticide use, less regulations on the quality of water, less protection of natural species...and now they're complaining that biodiversity is falling, bees are dying, their crops are in a bad shape and their fertile lands are becoming less and less usable. They're not the only ones responsible for it but I'd hardly call that a responsible behaviour.

It pains me to say that but in a world where people as a whole are short-sighted and irresponsible, I don't see how a specific category of people defined by what they own would be more responsible. I mean on paper they should, but on paper whe sould have started doing something about climate change fourty years ago.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

That requires some pretty enlightened and responsible landowners, honestly.
And there's always the risk that they only care about their own land. Most people are extremely short-sighted. "Not my land, not my problem" is a suicidal behavior on the long run and yet many people think that way, i'm afraid owning land can only further reinforce that.

A good example is with people who own agricultural lands. You'd expect them to think about the future and to vote responsibly to make sure their land will remain fertile and usable in the long run. And yet in Europe agricultural lobbies have spent the last decades advocating for more pesticide use, less regulations on the quality of water, less protection of natural species...and now they're complaining that biodiversity is falling, bees are dying, their crops are in a bad shape and their fertile lands are becoming less and less usable. They're not the only ones responsible for it but I'd hardly call that a responsible behaviour.

It pains me to say that but in a world where people as a whole are short-sighted and irresponsible, I don't see how a specific category of people defined by what they own would be more responsible. I mean on paper they should, but on paper whe sould have started doing something about climate change fourty years ago.

Of course when you have universal suffrage, the landowning interests will depend heavily on lobbies mostly in the pocket of massive agribusiness. Many farmers who are smaller are completely marginalized because the state will pay for damages caused by large farms, and those who want to be environmentally friendly therefore have to pay more. If suffrage were limited to landholders in general however, small farmers would not have their voices drowned out by corporate farming lobbies

[Isilanka]

That requires some pretty enlightened and responsible landowners, honestly.
And there's always the risk that they only care about their own land. Most people are extremely short-sighted. "Not my land, not my problem" is a suicidal behavior on the long run and yet many people think that way, i'm afraid owning land can only further reinforce that.

A good example is with people who own agricultural lands. You'd expect them to think about the future and to vote responsibly to make sure their land will remain fertile and usable in the long run. And yet in Europe agricultural lobbies have spent the last decades advocating for more pesticide use, less regulations on the quality of water, less protection of natural species...and now they're complaining that biodiversity is falling, bees are dying, their crops are in a bad shape and their fertile lands are becoming less and less usable. They're not the only ones responsible for it but I'd hardly call that a responsible behaviour.

It pains me to say that but in a world where people as a whole are short-sighted and irresponsible, I don't see how a specific category of people defined by what they own would be more responsible. I mean on paper they should, but on paper whe sould have started doing something about climate change fourty years ago.

Of course when you have universal suffrage, the landowning interests will depend heavily on lobbies mostly in the pocket of massive agribusiness. Many farmers who are smaller are completely marginalized because the state will pay for damages caused by large farms, and those who want to be environmentally friendly therefore have to pay more. If suffrage were limited to landholders in general however, small farmers would not have their voices drowned out by corporate farming lobbies

They still would. They need those corporate farming lobbies and they can't get rid of them easily. In region where there are cooperative lobbies, then sure it might help.

But seriously, how does a system like that works without severely affecting entire chunks of the population ? The vast majority of people aren't landowners. You'd give the power to farmers, riche people with important real estate properties, housing companies (through strawmen probably, because companies can't vote) in a world where the last two categories already have too much power in the public sphere.
And how do you manage public properties, which in Europe - and in the US too I assume - are very extensive ? Most urban and sometimes agricultural lands are owned by companies, not real persons directly. How do you manage that ? The owner of the company gets the vote ? The CEO ?
And how do you prevent rich people from buying property, effectively politically silencing the people they buy the land from ? Such a system is extremely easily to manipulate because property is easy to acquire and lose. If I'm a mayor, what prevents me from selling land for nothing to give voting power to people who support me ?
Also i'm not even sure rural areas wouldn't be fucked over once again in this system. If land ownership of any kind = one vote, lands in cities are much smaller than in most countrysides. It's not completely stupid to imagien cities would still have more voting power.

If I live, move around, work, use a city and its buildings, it makes very little sense to exclude me from decisions just because I don't own land. If I produce riches through services and not an activity that's directly linked to land-owning, it doesn't make sense to tell me that I don't have a say in the economic system of my country. In fact it's detrimental to the rest of the country, because you're excluding from the political process people who make an important part of the country's wealth and population.

Restricting vote to land owernship is only viable in a world where the most relevant social class is the rural gentry. And this world is called 17th century Britain.

[The Parkus Empire]

Of course when you have universal suffrage, the landowning interests will depend heavily on lobbies mostly in the pocket of massive agribusiness. Many farmers who are smaller are completely marginalized because the state will pay for damages caused by large farms, and those who want to be environmentally friendly therefore have to pay more. If suffrage were limited to landholders in general however, small farmers would not have their voices drowned out by corporate farming lobbies

They still would. They need those corporate farming lobbies and they can't get rid of them easily. In region where there are cooperative lobbies, then sure it might help.

But seriously, how does a system like that works without severely affecting entire chunks of the population ? The vast majority of people aren't landowners. You'd give the power to farmers, riche people with important real estate properties, housing companies (through strawmen probably, because companies can't vote) in a world where the last two categories already have too much power in the public sphere.
And how do you manage public properties, which in Europe - and in the US too I assume - are very extensive ? Most urban and sometimes agricultural lands are owned by companies, not real persons directly. How do you manage that ? The owner of the company gets the vote ? The CEO ?
And how do you prevent rich people from buying property, effectively politically silencing the people they buy the land from ? Such a system is extremely easily to manipulate because property is easy to acquire and lose. If I'm a mayor, what prevents me from selling land for nothing to give voting power to people who support me ?
Also i'm not even sure rural areas wouldn't be fucked over once again in this system. If land ownership of any kind = one vote, lands in cities are much smaller than in most countrysides. It's not completely stupid to imagien cities would still have more voting power.

If I live, move around, work, use a city and its buildings, it makes very little sense to exclude me from decisions just because I don't own land. If I produce riches through services and not an activity that's directly linked to land-owning, it doesn't make sense to tell me that I don't have a say in the economic system of my country. In fact it's detrimental to the rest of the country, because you're excluding from the political process people who make an important part of the country's wealth and population.

Restricting vote to land owernship is only viable in a world where the most relevant social class is the rural gentry. And this world is called 17th century Britain.

Lobbies become necessary and powerful when voting is unrestricted because it makes the cost of politicking skyrocket. If it's restricted their necessity and power diminishes immensely.

Public properties are maintained by taxes, I suppose there is an argument that if you pay income tax, you should be able to vote regardless of land ownership. As I have said before, I would prefer distinct representation for landowners and non-landowners who pay taxes.

[Yulenburg]

I think you guys should consider two things:

first: the definition of ownership. Ownership is usually considered a bundle of rights, with the bundle of rights tied to landownership varying with the type of land ownership. For example, mineral rights might be owned by a different person than the rights to live or work the land. There is also a hierarchy of landownership, with the highest level belonging to the state or sovereign. This is part of the basis for eminent domain in the States. So you can own a field in the States, but the State and Federal government also own it, but in a different way.

Second: the differences between property and land. As far as I know, voting was mostly restricted by property. For example: in England there was often a 40 shilling requirement to vote. When it was first instituted, it was quite restrictive, but because of inflation, there were a lot more people with the right to vote. This property, was often in the form of a small holding. The land the holding was on, was own by the landowner, but the tenant owned the right to live there, and could sell that right, and only be evicted if he didn't pay the rent.


I should also point out the classic argument for restricted the vote based on wealth, was to restrict the vote to those that are dependent. For example, a large landowner might have fifty workers, who all have families. Since, the ballot was open, the workers and their families would probably all vote for their boss. The owner of the small holding, might be less educated than the landowner's agent, but he is more independent.

So basically, the secret ballot as well as more independence to workers have largely abated those concerns.

[Diopolis]

I should explain myself better.
What I meant was that to me, I don't see how landowners would commited to be common good. That's the meaning of my sentence. I think owning land is a qualification that's actively detrimental to those who don't own land because I don't see how their interests would automatically align with what's better for society as a whole, not because it's a qualification.

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

By that standard the childless should be disenfranchised.
Which is actually a good idea.

[Bienenhalde]

I wish we had installed a Hohenzollern as King of America, as was suggested about the time of the adoption of the United States.

Well, as I German American, I certainly would not object to such an arrangement. Although the British royal family also has German connections through the houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Oldenburg.

[Frievolk]

I wish we had installed a Hohenzollern as King of America, as was suggested about the time of the adoption of the United States.

Well, as I German American, I certainly would not object to such an arrangement. Although the British royal family also has German connections through the houses of Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Oldenburg.

To be fair, there are few European Noble Houses with no German connections.

[Isilanka]

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

By that standard the childless should be disenfranchised.
Which is actually a good idea.

This is shitty.
Take two random people, their gender doesn't matter.
One of them had four children while he/she clearly couldn't support them and barely raises them because of a lack of time and interest, giving them a shitty education.
One of them doesn't want to have children but works in a charity, gets involved in politics and helps his/her family.

Who's more responsible ?

[Salus Maior]

So you telling me that scene where Charles III dissolves parliament can't happen anymore?

That's news to me because I've seen that scene.

It's from a movie, about when Charles gets the throne.

It was on Youtube but it looks like it got taken down.

[Salus Maior]

I wish we had installed a Hohenzollern as King of America, as was suggested about the time of the adoption of the United States.

That was on the table?

[Frievolk]

I wish we had installed a Hohenzollern as King of America, as was suggested about the time of the adoption of the United States.

That was on the table?

Not on the table, per se, but someone suggested it at some point. Christ knows it'd could've been a better sight than our good old US of A

[Salus Maior]

That was on the table?

Not on the table, per se, but someone suggested it at some point. Christ knows it'd could've been a better sight than our good old US of A

Huh, who suggested it?

[Frievolk]

Not on the table, per se, but someone suggested it at some point. Christ knows it'd could've been a better sight than our good old US of A

Huh, who suggested it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_scheme

[Second Empire of America]

Oh please. The only qualification a monarch has (apart from the guy who founds the dynasty) is the loins they came from. Everyone voting is still less faulty than "his daddy was king so he is entitled to an executive office"

I don't think so. I would say voting based on universal suffrage is far, far less likely to select one of the top 10% most qualified than monarchy is.

If you want to restrict suffrage, the best way to do that would be to restrict it to college graduates, not property owners. Better to have the country run by intelligent academics than by any idiot who owns a bit of land and shows up to the polls.

[Salus Maior]

Huh, who suggested it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_scheme

Shame.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't see how people who don't own land are committed to the common good, but landowners have something significant they are responsible for which makes them more likely to vote responsibly.

By that standard the childless should be disenfranchised.
Which is actually a good idea.

Not unless you are also excluding unmarried parents, divorced parents, and those who receive state help (including tax credits) for their kids.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think so. I would say voting based on universal suffrage is far, far less likely to select one of the top 10% most qualified than monarchy is.

If you want to restrict suffrage, the best way to do that would be to restrict it to college graduates, not property owners. Better to have the country run by intelligent academics than by any idiot who owns a bit of land and shows up to the polls.

Lol no fucking thanks. Managing land forces you to at least be in touch with reality and responsibility, something academics don't necessary have to be

[Diopolis]

By that standard the childless should be disenfranchised.
Which is actually a good idea.

Not unless you are also excluding unmarried parents, divorced parents, and those who receive state help (including tax credits) for their kids.

Of course!