Objections to monarchy

[Old Tyrannia]

The principle is the same. You rise through society on your own merit, leaving the weaker members of society behind. Thus, you end up with an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite, because they were the best of the bunch, and therefore feels no obligation to the lower orders of society because it's their own fault for being unsuccesful.

Are you pro-monarchy?

I'm almost disappointed that anyone still needs to ask this question here. Yes, I am a monarchist.

[Genivaria]

Are you pro-monarchy?

I'm almost disappointed that anyone still needs to ask this question here. Yes, I am a monarchist.

And yet you take issue with "an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite".
I am confused.

[The Nuclear Fist]

And yet you take issue with "an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite".
I am confused.

It would seem that s/he isn't satisfied unless the oligarchs or dictator in charge wears a crown and pads their regime with pomp.

Personally, I like having a small part to play in how my government conducts itself. It's a lot better than how it was before, living under an autocrat. An incompetent one at that.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm almost disappointed that anyone still needs to ask this question here. Yes, I am a monarchist.

And yet you take issue with "an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite".
I am confused.

Then you didn't read my argument correctly. In your perfect social darwinist society, the most successful rise to the top of society and form the elite. This elite justifies its superior status because it earned it, and therefore has the right to be a member of the elite and feels no obligation to the lower classes. By contrast, in a monarchical society with a hereditary nobility the nobility does not come to power by its own merit but by right of birth. Rather than viewing society as a competition, the nobility is part of a cooperative, corporatist culture where every group has obligations to fulfill. The traditional aristocracy with its conceptions of noblesse oblige is therefore preferable to the ruling class of a society based purely on competition and the triumph of the "strong" over the "weak".

[Mavorpen]

And yet you take issue with "an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite".
I am confused.

Then you didn't read my argument correctly. In your perfect social darwinist society, the most successful rise to the top of society and form the elite. This elite justifies its superior status because it earned it, and therefore has the right to be a member of the elite and feels no obligation to the lower classes. By contrast, in a monarchical society with a hereditary nobility the nobility does not come to power by its own merit but by right of birth. Rather than viewing society as a competition, the nobility is part of a cooperative, corporatist culture where every group has obligations to fulfill. The traditional aristocracy with its conceptions of noblesse oblige is therefore preferable to the ruling class of a society based purely on competition and the triumph of the "strong" over the "weak".

I don't think you know what social Darwinism is.

Sociak Darwinism best describes monarchies for the obvious reason that "the strongest rule" is the only reason why the monarch has power in the first place. You know for a fact that somewhere down the line their ancestor obtained power through sheer "might makes right" mentality, and then further argued that they must be inherently superior, whether it be because of their lineage or because of divine right. They then use this to ensure their lineage continues in power.

THAT is social darwinism.

[Vazdania]

Then you didn't read my argument correctly. In your perfect social darwinist society, the most successful rise to the top of society and form the elite. This elite justifies its superior status because it earned it, and therefore has the right to be a member of the elite and feels no obligation to the lower classes. By contrast, in a monarchical society with a hereditary nobility the nobility does not come to power by its own merit but by right of birth. Rather than viewing society as a competition, the nobility is part of a cooperative, corporatist culture where every group has obligations to fulfill. The traditional aristocracy with its conceptions of noblesse oblige is therefore preferable to the ruling class of a society based purely on competition and the triumph of the "strong" over the "weak".

I don't think you know what social Darwinism is.

Sociak Darwinism best describes monarchies for the obvious reason that "the strongest rule" is the only reason why the monarch has power in the first place. You know for a fact that somewhere down the line their ancestor obtained power through sheer "might makes right" mentality, and then further argued that they must be inherently superior, whether it be because of their lineage or because of divine right. They then use this to ensure their lineage continues in power.

THAT is social darwinism.

sounds good to me.

[Genivaria]

And yet you take issue with "an elite that feels it has the right to be an elite".
I am confused.

Then you didn't read my argument correctly. In your perfect social darwinist society, the most successful rise to the top of society and form the elite. This elite justifies its superior status because it earned it, and therefore has the right to be a member of the elite and feels no obligation to the lower classes. By contrast, in a monarchical society with a hereditary nobility the nobility does not come to power by its own merit but by right of birth. Rather than viewing society as a competition, the nobility is part of a cooperative, corporatist culture where every group has obligations to fulfill. The traditional aristocracy with its conceptions of noblesse oblige is therefore preferable to the ruling class of a society based purely on competition and the triumph of the "strong" over the "weak".

I'm sorry what? How exactly is being born 'earning' anything?

[Mavorpen]

Then you didn't read my argument correctly. In your perfect social darwinist society, the most successful rise to the top of society and form the elite. This elite justifies its superior status because it earned it, and therefore has the right to be a member of the elite and feels no obligation to the lower classes. By contrast, in a monarchical society with a hereditary nobility the nobility does not come to power by its own merit but by right of birth. Rather than viewing society as a competition, the nobility is part of a cooperative, corporatist culture where every group has obligations to fulfill. The traditional aristocracy with its conceptions of noblesse oblige is therefore preferable to the ruling class of a society based purely on competition and the triumph of the "strong" over the "weak".

I'm sorry what? How exactly is being born 'earning' anything?

No, he's talking about a republic. "Earning it" means being voted into power.

[Genivaria]

I'm sorry what? How exactly is being born 'earning' anything?

No, he's talking about a republic. "Earning it" means being voted into power.

The argument was that Stratocracy is superior to Monarchy because in a Stratocracy you have to earn your place.

[Mavorpen]

No, he's talking about a republic. "Earning it" means being voted into power.

The argument was that Stratocracy is superior to Monarchy because in a Stratocracy you have to earn your place.

I didn't see anything about Statocracy.

Or maybe I missed it. I only got a few hours of sleep.

[Genivaria]

The argument was that Stratocracy is superior to Monarchy because in a Stratocracy you have to earn your place.

I didn't see anything about Statocracy.

Or maybe I missed it. I only got a few hours of sleep.

Hold on let me find it.

Until we can actually produce a system where you're required to rise on the merits of your intellect and skill, we cannot use our system to criticize another. It's the pot calling the kettle a darker shade of black, it doesn't work.

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

viewtopic.php?p=16174361#p16174361

It starts from there.

[Mavorpen]

I didn't see anything about Statocracy.

Or maybe I missed it. I only got a few hours of sleep.

Hold on let me find it.

So what you want the Turian Hierarchy? I'm down with that.

viewtopic.php?p=16174361#p16174361

It starts from there.

Isn't meritocracy different from Statocracy?

[Genivaria]

Hold on let me find it.
viewtopic.php?p=16174361#p16174361

It starts from there.

Isn't meritocracy different from Statocracy?

Meritocracy is basically any system that encourages promoting people by 'merit' as opposed to family connections or nepotism, whether that's skill in business in a Plutocracy or skill in soldiery in a Stratocracy.
The point was that the Turian Hierarchy is portrayed as very meritocratic.

[Mavorpen]

Isn't meritocracy different from Statocracy?

Meritocracy is basically any system that encourages promoting people by 'merit' as opposed to family connections or nepotism, whether that's skill in business in a Plutocracy or skill in soldiery in a Stratocracy.
The point was that the Turian Hierarchy is portrayed as very meritocratic.

Ah I got it, thanks.

[The Darkfire Guild]

Wait, monarchy isn't shitty because democracy also has shitty aspects to it? Isn't that a logical fallacy of some sort?

[Meryuma]

Because a contract by definition is explicitly agreed to. I generally find Vazdania's viewpoints frustrating but it is true that the idea of the "social contract" is bogus and pushes the concept of a contract to its breaking point.

Not really, unless you see being part of society as without any inherent obligations whatsoever.

I mean the social contract as in the argument that one implicitly consents to the state.

why not just vote in a new monarch every fifteen years?

Because that's just a more autocratic democracy.

Adolf Hitler, for example, was elected.

Not exactly.

Wait, monarchy isn't shitty because democracy also has shitty aspects to it? Isn't that a logical fallacy of some sort?

Tu quoque, I think.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Wait, monarchy isn't shitty because democracy also has shitty aspects to it? Isn't that a logical fallacy of some sort?

Yes. It's a form of tu quoque.

[Tsuken]

I don't mind monarchy because with private ownership of the government, there is more incentive to use your power efficiently and not screw over future monarchs, but I don't think that wold stop anyone hell bent on trashing the place. I personally like democracy, but I'd say I'd put monarchy in my "meh...whatever" column rather than the "anti" column.

[Frisivisia]

I don't mind monarchy because with private ownership of the government, there is more incentive to use your power efficiently and not screw over future monarchs, but I don't think that wold stop anyone hell bent on trashing the place. I personally like democracy, but I'd say I'd put monarchy in my "meh...whatever" column rather than the "anti" column.

Right, because monarchy is never oppressive and generally works out pretty well for everybody.

[The UK in Exile]

I don't mind monarchy because with private ownership of the government, there is more incentive to use your power efficiently and not screw over future monarchs, but I don't think that wold stop anyone hell bent on trashing the place. I personally like democracy, but I'd say I'd put monarchy in my "meh...whatever" column rather than the "anti" column.

Right, because monarchy is never oppressive and generally works out pretty well for everybody.

the Monarchs are the ones that have it tough really, always having their heads cut off.

[Vazdania]

Right, because monarchy is never oppressive and generally works out pretty well for everybody.

the Monarchs are the ones that have it tough really, always having their heads cut off.

This is why I'd be fine being part of the aristocracy...

[Frisivisia]

the Monarchs are the ones that have it tough really, always having their heads cut off.

This is why I'd be fine being part of the aristocracy...

Until the poor don't have enough to eat, and turn to eating the rich.

[The UK in Exile]

the Monarchs are the ones that have it tough really, always having their heads cut off.

This is why I'd be fine being part of the aristocracy...

thats worse, the peasants AND the King get to cut your head off.

[Vazdania]

This is why I'd be fine being part of the aristocracy...

Until the poor don't have enough to eat, and turn to eating the rich.

so they are cannibals?

[Vazdania]

This is why I'd be fine being part of the aristocracy...

thats worse, the peasants AND the King get to cut your head off.

Nobody can win.