Objections to monarchy

[Vazdania]

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.

How does one escape something that is all consuming....like a world government? They cannot. A coerced contract is not a valid contract.

[Condunum]

If there were any person who could convince me a Monarchy was preferable, it would be Dis, because this sounds nice.

[Shnercropolis]

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.

How does one escape something that is all consuming....like a world government? They cannot. A coerced contract is not a valid contract.

Exactly my idea.
One more reason why I would never want to live in a world government.

[Vazdania]

If there were any person who could convince me a Monarchy was preferable, it would be Dis, because this sounds nice.

Frenchy(Ditstruzio) is a word smith extraordinaire!

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

How does one escape something that is all consuming....like a world government? They cannot. A coerced contract is not a valid contract.

Not valid how? Ethically?

[Condunum]

How does one escape something that is all consuming....like a world government? They cannot. A coerced contract is not a valid contract.

Exactly my idea.
One more reason why I would never want to live in a world government.

I wish I could cryogenically freeze myself or 10,000 years so I can hear people bitching about not wanting an interplanetary government and then laugh as it's the same thing as always.

[Vazdania]

How does one escape something that is all consuming....like a world government? They cannot. A coerced contract is not a valid contract.

Not valid how? Ethically?

Contracts must be entered into voluntarily.

[The Parkus Empire]

Not valid how? Ethically?

Contracts must be entered into voluntarily.

Why?

[Vazdania]

Exactly my idea.
One more reason why I would never want to live in a world government.

I wish I could cryogenically freeze myself or 10,000 years so I can hear people bitching about not wanting an interplanetary government and then laugh as it's the same thing as always.

Please accept/bring my forum post into your Cryogenically frozen tomb, and show it to the future people!!!

[Shnercropolis]

Contracts must be entered into voluntarily.

Why?

That's the nature of a contract. Been in effect since the dawn of civilization, as far as I can tell.

[Vazdania]

Contracts must be entered into voluntarily.

Why?

the will theory of contract?

[Minarchist States]

Contracts must be entered into voluntarily.

Why?

It's immoral if it's forced. It's involuntary, and worse, they expect things from you that when you never consented in the first place!

[Sedikal]

I nether support nor oppose monarchy. But rather the people who rule it if they as a tyrant.

[Shnercropolis]

Exactly my idea.
One more reason why I would never want to live in a world government.

I wish I could cryogenically freeze myself or 10,000 years so I can hear people bitching about not wanting an interplanetary government and then laugh as it's the same thing as always.

It would be hard to laugh while cyrogenically frozen.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why?

the will theory of contract?

Any reason why we should subscribe to that shit?

[Forster Keys]

Hi there! I am DIstruzio, NSG's resident Eastern Orthodox Libertarian Monarchist. I used to refer to myself as an anarcho-monarchist but after a conversation with my Bishop and after years of conversations on this site, I've decided that it is, perhaps, better to identify myself in a less confusing manner. Folks tended to focus on preconceived notions of anarchy and monarchy rather than on anything I actually said. Which, of itself, limited my ability to respond to people. So... fuck that noise. Libertarian monarchy it is.

That's a good choice I think. Semantics are everything.

I'm anti-statist. Not astatist. I reject the State. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Well I try and act as if it isn't there half the time.

But an identifier change isn't the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to address, as best I can, common attacks by the democratist (an advocate for democratic governance) against monarchy.

First and foremost, we must recall that some criticisms of monarchy equally apply to democracy itself. Although democracy allows the people some influence over the government, they do not and cannot actually run it. Even popularly elected governments are governments of rule from above. Thus the common trope of "authoritarian" governance being absent from a democracy rings rather flaccid. There is, in reality, no difference of substance between an aristocratic government and a democratic government, only degree.

You're speaking about a democracy of delegates rather than representatives, where people elect a small group to make all the decision for them. This maybe the primary way in which many states run themselves today but is not definitive democracy. I much rather direct democracy, yet direct democracy relies upon a society that is vigilant and interested rather than apathetic and slothful, and enlightened enough to take advice from experts rather than base its decisions upon superstition and unfounded populism.

Along this same vein of inane bleating against monarchy comes the condemnation of monarchy as a divisive symbol of inequality.

I don't bleat do I? I may act a little sheepish sometimes. But it'd be foolish for ewe to characterise the whole flock as such.

The democratist, in making this critique, creates an idealistic society in which every individual enjoys the exact same status and from this status derives the same right, if not the same ability, to rise to the highest of political offices. But this stretches the actual meaning of democracy from a manner and method of choosing political authority to an egalitarian social ethos.

Indeed. Democracy came from ancient Athens, and if you ever wanted a posterboy for inequality it'd be Democratic Athens.

A pipedream. It also creates a false dichotomy for monarchy need not obstruct easy relations among persons of different occupations and backgrounds; a suspicious egalitarianism is likelier to do that.

The monarchy makes no pretense of equality. At it's apex a single figure ordained (usually) by God, and below a hierarchy set by tradition. The relations are set and simple, yet no less ridiculous.

In no society can all persons have the same status.

Very much so, though is humans I believe it is both expedient and "right" to treat them the same, so as to facilitate solidarity amongst the community.

What the democratist actually complains about in this most common of tropes is divisiveness. But, I must ask, what is not divisive about an election? Are there not winners and losers? Is there not a victorious majority and an expropriated minority? A monarch, however, cannot symbolize defeat to supporters of other candidates, for there were none.

Of course there are. But in a monarchy there is a more or less permanently privileged minority set against a myriad of other often underpriviliged groups. The divisiveness is the same if not greater.

He has no further political opportunities or ambitions except to perform his duties as monarch and perform them well in order that he might maintain the good name of his dynasty.

An absolute monarch has all but absolute power under his law. He can do whatever he likes. Acts of gallantry are just as able to be performed as acts of cruelty. His own individual self interest is his own to ponder, and without proper checks and balances, this can be disastrous.

A monarch stands neutral above partisan party politics.

Not at all. Given that parties are simply groups of people with common political causes it is more than possible for a king to agree with one party's vision against another, through his own conscience or simply to play off internal factions against one another.

Obviously, therefore, a monarch is preservative rather than active. He secures his peoples freedoms.

I do not see how this follows. A monarch will most likely (but not always) seek to preserve his own power and freedoms. His views of others depend on his whim.

Alongside a monarch comes, by necessity, the nobility - the aristocratic elite. They can provide an alternative to sheer wealth or notoriety as a source of distinction and so dilute the fawning over celebrities characteristic of modern democracies.

Nobles are most often extremely wealthy and notorious. If you want celebrities and cults of personality look no further than the English Royal Family, or the old Tsars of Russia.

If anything this rather disputes the claim of divisiveness in monarchy - it goes further still. Within this lens we see that it is democracy, not monarchy, that breeds a divided population.

Cults of personality can and do unite a populace, for a while, yes. Though I thought you didn't like this?

I'm reminded of the words of H.L. Mencken:

"No educated man, stating plainly the elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that principally concern government, could be elected to office in a democratic state, save perhaps by a miracle. … It has become a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union, save by a combination of miracles that must tax the resourcefulness even of God. — the man of native integrity is either barred from the public service altogether, or subjected to almost irresistible temptations after he gets in."

No matter how fancy Mencken might put it "all politicians are corrupt" is a rather silly notion to have. I've met too many to consider the idea anything more than generalised rhetoric.

For, the critiques continue... what if the monarch is a nutbag - a manifest danger to society? Well... what of a regency, popular among the people, to guard them against cruelty and incompetence until the next heir is ready?

Checks and balances are a grand idea, but you're simply placing one insititution of absolute power in front of another. There is no guarantee of a popular regency, and there is every possibility that with the incestous nature of monarchies, both figuratively and literally, that the regency will be so tied to the "nutbag monarch" that it cannot operate independently, or worse still, act in its own malign interest against a "noble king".

And, I ask, how is this behavior avoided in the modern and liberal democracies?

The checks and balances within and between the legislative, executive and judicial branches for one. And the lack of a set hierarchy bound in stone, playing on people's minds. But I'm not a liberal democrat anyway.

A democratist politician is elevated not because of birthright or ability but, on the contrary, because of his incompetence. His lack of knowledge. A politician cannot be knowledgeable of economics or he cannot win office. He cannot be morally stalwart or he cannot win office. He cannot be anything but a liar, a grafter, a lickspittle, a politician. Otherwise, he does not win office.

That's all sweet to say but it just isn't true. I know you really must hate politicians Dis, but look through the emotion that saturates this paragraph and take people for what they are. I know quite a few able, knowledgeable, honest professionals who have gained office. This idea of yours once again confuses me.

It is true that there is, throughout history, a wonderful tradition of amazing statesmen who were public-spirited, well educated, and morally stalwart. They did not meet the measure of the buffoons characterizing modern liberal democracies. Why not? Because these statesmen existed and thrived in relatively less democratic nations. It seems that, in reality, Gresham's Law guides the political winds today.

There could be a bit of misplaced nostalgia there.

So... for those who would argue that certain monarchies exist alongside democratic institutions I must point out that, among these nations, the monarch serves to dilute and otherwise guard against the democratic tendencies of the nation. Even in America there exists a non-elected elite for the sole purpose of protecting and ensuring the liberty of the population. This, I believe, is the utilitarian reason for supporting a monarchy. Beyond mere continuity and identity of the culture and heritage of the nation.

Monarchy as a check and balance? Potentially good. Though in my own country the case of Whitlam is still remembered.

What say you, NSG? Are there critiques of monarchy from a democratic perspective that I have missed? Have I been unconvincing?

More convincing than most, yet not enough to get me waving my Union Jack.

[Vazdania]

the will theory of contract?

Any reason why we should subscribe to that shit?

any reason why we should subscribe to the theory of evolution?

[Condunum]

I wish I could cryogenically freeze myself or 10,000 years so I can hear people bitching about not wanting an interplanetary government and then laugh as it's the same thing as always.

It would be hard to laugh while cyrogenically frozen.

The implied action was resuscitation.

[Blasveck]

Why?

It's immoral if it's forced. It's involuntary, and worse, they expect things from you that when you never consented in the first place!

So leave.

If you don't like the shitty neighborhood you live in, and you have the resources to move, move.

[Blasveck]

Any reason why we should subscribe to that shit?

any reason why we should subscribe to the theory of evolution?

Did you just....

[Vazdania]

It's immoral if it's forced. It's involuntary, and worse, they expect things from you that when you never consented in the first place!

So leave.

If you don't like the shitty neighborhood you live in, and you have the resources to move, move.

HOW CAN I LEAVE AN ALL CONSUMING GOVERNMENT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? *excessive amount of question marks because I'm actually yelling at the computer screen*

[Shnercropolis]

It would be hard to laugh while cyrogenically frozen.

The implied action was resuscitation.

Ah.
Well, IDK. In 10000 years the language(s) will most likely be radically different.

[Vazdania]

any reason why we should subscribe to the theory of evolution?

Did you just....

Did I just?

[Minarchist States]

It's immoral if it's forced. It's involuntary, and worse, they expect things from you that when you never consented in the first place!

So leave.

If you don't like the shitty neighborhood you live in, and you have the resources to move, move.

What does neighborhoods have to do with this? I am getting a really hostile tone here.

[The Parkus Empire]

Any reason why we should subscribe to that shit?

any reason why we should subscribe to the theory of evolution?

Scientific method. But you shouldn't have to if you don't want to.