Objections to monarchy

[Vazdania]

yes, its everyone's property.

A group or culture historically owns a piece of land and distributes it among its members, through the relevant authority.

Well okay...but if one of that group sells land to somebody outside that group....the land that was sold is no longer communal.

[Shnercropolis]

You can't have fetuses laughing at the Emperor.

fetuses are always causing so much trouble

Which is why they should have to go through a full background before we let them be born.
"Excuse me, sir? There's nothing on your file. I'll have to deport you."

[Shnercropolis]

You live in the land, you accept public services and agree to pay for them. You also get to vote for people and things. It's pretty straightforward and hardly "moronic".

But taxes were the lowest they'd ever been last year! I'm being oppressed Frisivisia!!!

I'm okay with higher taxes if I get free healthcare for it.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Well okay...but if one of that group sells land to somebody outside that group....the land that was sold is no longer communal.

You're clearly not understanding this.

[Vazdania]

Well okay...but if one of that group sells land to somebody outside that group....the land that was sold is no longer communal.

You're clearly not understanding this.

People divide up their land.....somebody outside this group comes buy and says "hmm.....fine lot of land here" while they sip their tea...and decides to purchase it. The land that was sold is no longer part of the original groups land.

[Minarchist States]

Wasn't Reagan a Minarcho-Monarchist? I forgot.



Exactly! The social contract is absurd.

To me, it is the most thoroughly moronic political theory, absolutely bereft of any redeeming value. There are even parts of Marxism that I agree with/find interesting, but the idea of the state being some kind of monist embodiment of the people to which everyone implicitly consents (regardless of their explicit actions) is so clearly full of holes that I don't understand why anyone would use it to justify any government.

If one had to justify government, I think the most logical argument would have to be that the state has the power, and thus if you do not want to be harmed you must obey its decisions. I would not do so, but one could argue that this would be beneficial to those who are made to obey without having to make up nonsense about people secretly consenting to their treatment or the government being the interest of everyone, as opposed to its own specific interest.

Indeed. But I think government is justified on the fact that it can provide minimum services instead of being the device of the masses to assert their will. The idea that we "consent" to our citizenship (upon birth!) is completely absurd, and if government intervention is required for the first few years of life then it should not require me paying it back.

Neither I believe is electing a whole bunch of "representatives" (yeah right) to rule the nation in an oligarchy like power structure, I'd rather have highly regulated direct democracy, or as this thread suggests, perhaps a monarch that exists to only be a figurehead with meager power.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

-Ayn Rand

[Shnercropolis]

You're clearly not understanding this.

People divide up their land.....somebody outside this group comes buy and says "hmm.....fine lot of land here" while they sip their tea...and decides to purchase it. The land that was sold is no longer part of the original groups land.

Rather. If everyone agrees that that guy is a total asshole, they can kick him out.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well okay...but if one of that group sells land to somebody outside that group....the land that was sold is no longer communal.

No, it isn't. But it is under ultimate proprietorship of the government legally appointed to represent the inhabitants of that sovereign state.

[Vazdania]

Well okay...but if one of that group sells land to somebody outside that group....the land that was sold is no longer communal.

No, it isn't. But it is under ultimate proprietorship of the government legally appointed to represent the inhabitants of that sovereign state.

Not if someone outside of that government purchased it.

[The Parkus Empire]

You're clearly not understanding this.

People divide up their land.....somebody outside this group comes buy and says "hmm.....fine lot of land here" while they sip their tea...and decides to purchase it. The land that was sold is no longer part of the original groups land.

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that your ancestor purchased believing it wouldn't still fall under U.S. sovereignty?

[Vazdania]

People divide up their land.....somebody outside this group comes buy and says "hmm.....fine lot of land here" while they sip their tea...and decides to purchase it. The land that was sold is no longer part of the original groups land.

Rather. If everyone agrees that that guy is a total asshole, they can kick him out.

property rights aren't subject to vote.

[Blasveck]

To me, it is the most thoroughly moronic political theory, absolutely bereft of any redeeming value. There are even parts of Marxism that I agree with/find interesting, but the idea of the state being some kind of monist embodiment of the people to which everyone implicitly consents (regardless of their explicit actions) is so clearly full of holes that I don't understand why anyone would use it to justify any government.

If one had to justify government, I think the most logical argument would have to be that the state has the power, and thus if you do not want to be harmed you must obey its decisions. I would not do so, but one could argue that this would be beneficial to those who are made to obey without having to make up nonsense about people secretly consenting to their treatment or the government being the interest of everyone, as opposed to its own specific interest.

Indeed. But I think government is justified on the fact that it can provide minimum services instead of being the device of the masses to assert their will. The idea that we "consent" to our citizenship (upon birth!) is completely absurd, and if government intervention is required for the first few years of life then it should not require me paying it back.

Neither I believe is electing a whole bunch of "representatives" (yeah right) to rule the nation in an oligarchy like power structure, I'd rather have highly regulated direct democracy, or as this thread suggests, perhaps a monarch that exists to only be a figurehead with meager power.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

-Ayn Rand

So tyranny by majority?

Wonderful.

And to think the Constitution protects minority rights.

[Vazdania]

People divide up their land.....somebody outside this group comes buy and says "hmm.....fine lot of land here" while they sip their tea...and decides to purchase it. The land that was sold is no longer part of the original groups land.

Are you seriously expecting me to believe that your ancestor purchased believing it wouldn't still fall under U.S. sovereignty?

irrelevant.

[Wintersun]

But taxes were the lowest they'd ever been last year! I'm being oppressed Frisivisia!!!

I'm okay with higher taxes if I get universal healthcare for it.

Fixed, but agreed. Taxes are too low right now, even with cuts to unnecessary spending taxes need to be increased. If anything the only people who should be bitching about being oppressed are those too poor to afford land.

[The Parkus Empire]

Rather. If everyone agrees that that guy is a total asshole, they can kick him out.

property rights aren't subject to vote.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who said they can validated through conquest.

[Wintersun]

Indeed. But I think government is justified on the fact that it can provide minimum services instead of being the device of the masses to assert their will. The idea that we "consent" to our citizenship (upon birth!) is completely absurd, and if government intervention is required for the first few years of life then it should not require me paying it back.

Neither I believe is electing a whole bunch of "representatives" (yeah right) to rule the nation in an oligarchy like power structure, I'd rather have highly regulated direct democracy, or as this thread suggests, perhaps a monarch that exists to only be a figurehead with meager power.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

-Ayn Rand

So tyranny by majority?

Wonderful.

And to think the Constitution protects minority rights.

Is a tyranny by minority any better? Not really.

[Vazdania]

property rights aren't subject to vote.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who said they can validated through conquest.

Conquest =/= voting.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's pretty rich coming from someone who said they can validated through conquest.

Conquest =/= voting.

Then I guess the government will just have forcefully evict you and your family with guns in order for you to recognize their authority.

[Vazdania]

Conquest =/= voting.

Then I guess the government will just have forcefully evict you and your family with guns in order for you to recognize their authority.

Bit of a tyrannical government there, eh?

I suppose.

[Minarchist States]

So tyranny by majority?

Wonderful.

And to think the Constitution protects minority rights.

Is a tyranny by minority any better? Not really.

Mob rule is less cohesive if it is made up of diverse individuals, but it is a lesser evil IMO.

[Shnercropolis]

Rather. If everyone agrees that that guy is a total asshole, they can kick him out.

property rights aren't subject to vote.

They are. If 99% of all people in a pure democracy decided to make a law that Joe Schmo couldn't live there, then Joe Schmo couldn't live there.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then I guess the government will just have forcefully evict you and your family with guns in order for you to recognize their authority.

Bit of a tyrannical government there, eh?

I suppose.

Certainly is tyrannical. But it's kinda your fault for saying tyranny is a perfectly valid way to assert sovereignty but democracy isn't.

[Vazdania]

property rights aren't subject to vote.

They are. If 99% of all people in a pure democracy decided to make a law that Joe Schmo couldn't live there, then Jow Schmo couldn't live there.

Luckily there aren't Direct Democracies. Tyranny by Majority and all.

[Seleucas]

To me, it is the most thoroughly moronic political theory, absolutely bereft of any redeeming value. There are even parts of Marxism that I agree with/find interesting, but the idea of the state being some kind of monist embodiment of the people to which everyone implicitly consents (regardless of their explicit actions) is so clearly full of holes that I don't understand why anyone would use it to justify any government.

If one had to justify government, I think the most logical argument would have to be that the state has the power, and thus if you do not want to be harmed you must obey its decisions. I would not do so, but one could argue that this would be beneficial to those who are made to obey without having to make up nonsense about people secretly consenting to their treatment or the government being the interest of everyone, as opposed to its own specific interest.

You live in the land, you accept public services and agree to pay for them. You also get to vote for people and things. It's pretty straightforward and hardly "moronic".

But, again, voting is nothing but a ritual, and I don't see it as the sacrament that some hold it up as. My participation has no effect whatsoever, unlike in any other contract I might sign. (I don't understand why people get so huffy when I mention something as patently obvious as statistical insignificance as to why voting isn't all that it is held up to be.) Furthermore, said public services are only sustained to begin with by any revenue I might be generating for the government, I have no control over how said revenue is spent, and the amount I pay is not determined by me but by the decisions of the government. Whatever I might use is, in effect, just my recuperating my losses, while the rest of said money is diverted elsewhere.

I really don't understand why this supposed implicit consent is used as an argument (that, in essence, I am doing this to myself), when it would be more logical and more value neutral to simply take the position that I should just be be glad that the government doesn't take more than it does already.

You live in the land, you accept public services and agree to pay for them. You also get to vote for people and things. It's pretty straightforward and hardly "moronic".

But taxes were the lowest they'd ever been last year! I'm being oppressed Frisivisia!!!

The size of US taxes is not my biggest issue (though they certainly were not as low as they might have been before the 20th century); it is the US government using my money to fund its bellicose behavior, over which I have absolutely no control whatsoever.

[Shnercropolis]

They are. If 99% of all people in a pure democracy decided to make a law that Joe Schmo couldn't live there, then Jow Schmo couldn't live there.

Luckily there aren't Direct Democracies. Tyranny by Majority and all.

If someone doesn't like it, they can leave. Then it's rule by quorum.

That's actually a pretty good argument against a world government, now that i think of it.