Objections to monarchy

[Blasveck]

Silencing opposition to get elected doesn't strike me as democratic.

Voted into office...Democratic.

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

[Vazdania]

who was voted into power....through a democratic process.

IIRC, their coalition won a majority. Then, using the SA to intimidate political opponents, the Nazis forced through the enabling act which gave government power to Hitler's government. In May 1933 the Social Democrats were banned as well and Hitler managed to gain complete control of the government.

#ProblemWithCoalitionGovernments

[Vazdania]

Voted into office...Democratic.

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

Ceremonial Powers......

[Old Tyrannia]

Voted into office...Democratic.

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

The UK is a monarchy, then.

[The New Lowlands]

IIRC, their coalition won a majority. Then, using the SA to intimidate political opponents, the Nazis forced through the enabling act which gave government power to Hitler's government. In May 1933 the Social Democrats were banned as well and Hitler managed to gain complete control of the government.

#ProblemWithCoalitionGovernments

No, the problem was the use of intimidation and backroom deals.

Coalition governments work fine.

[Blasveck]

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

Ceremonial Powers......

That mean jack shit

[Warda]

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

The UK is a monarchy, then.

The UK is complicated. My best answer for this is yes, but the Queen is just so nice shes lets the other people handle government and limit her powers. CAUSE SHES NICE LIKE THAT!

[Old Tyrannia]

The UK is a monarchy, then.

The UK is complicated. My best answer for this is yes, but the Queen is just so nice shes lets the other people handle government and limit her powers. CAUSE SHES NICE LIKE THAT!

We have a monarch. Therefore, we are a monarchy. There is nothing complicated about it.

[The UK in Exile]

The UK is complicated. My best answer for this is yes, but the Queen is just so nice shes lets the other people handle government and limit her powers. CAUSE SHES NICE LIKE THAT!

We have a monarch. Therefore, we are a monarchy. There is nothing complicated about it.

but we have an elected government, therefore, we are a republic.

your logic does produce a single answer, therefore, it is faulty.

There is nothing complicated about about how complicated it is.

[Old Tyrannia]

but we have an elected government, therefore, we are a republic.

That's not the definition of a republic. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about and the United Kingdom is still a monarchy.

[The UK in Exile]

but we have an elected government, therefore, we are a republic.

That's not the definition of a republic. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about and the United Kingdom is still a monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers. In a republic, public offices are appointed or elected rather than inherited, and are not de jure the private property of the individuals who hold them. In modern times, a common simplified (I.e. WRONG) definition of a republic is a government whose head of state is not a monarch.

[Seleucas]

Utility above ideology, I say. The government should, at best, only exist to enforce private property. This is the most desirable form, but unfortunately millions of neoconservatives do not see the same way. Whether through superstition or some shit, neocons think it's America's/Britain's duty to agitate a whole bunch of people in the name of "democracy" (which we debunked as being flawed.) On the other hand we have liberals who are all on board with the "social contract" and use it to justify the involuntary intervention they do. Lose/lose.

You are right, morality is subject. What is not (as) subjective is reason, and reason tells us that no person can initiate force against other without punishment. The consistency is paramount.

---------------------
Edit: We have gotten too off topic! Who was the most permissive of all kings? Permissive as, letting the free market do it's stuff and letting their subjects do as they want.

King George the 3rd!

Well, I can't say much more than that I am in complete agreement.

I would say that the most permissive monarchs concerning the free market were the Dutch Stadtholders; they were some of the earliest advocates of free trade, and they were extremely tolerant for their time. My view is that the early modern Dutch States-General is about as good a system of government as one can get in terms of private property.

[Priory Academy USSR]

That's not the definition of a republic. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about and the United Kingdom is still a monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers. In a republic, public offices are appointed or elected rather than inherited, and are not de jure the private property of the individuals who hold them. In modern times, a common simplified (I.e. WRONG) definition of a republic is a government whose head of state is not a monarch.

What is the head of state if not a public office? That role is inherited via the monarchy.

[The UK in Exile]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

What is the head of state if not a public office? That role is inherited via the monarchy.

its the UK equivalent of the Man inside the Mickey mouse costume at disneyland.

[The New Lowlands]

King George the 3rd!

Well, I can't say much more than that I am in complete agreement.

I would say that the most permissive monarchs concerning the free market were the Dutch Stadtholders; they were some of the earliest advocates of free trade, and they were extremely tolerant for their time. My view is that the early modern Dutch States-General is about as good a system of government as one can get in terms of private property.

You should note that the Dutch Republic reached it's economic zenith in the First Stadtholderless Period. The Stadtholders were also not monarchs.

[Vazdania]

King George the 3rd!

without punishment. The consistency is paramount.

---------------------
Edit: We have gotten too off topic! Who was the most permissive of all kings? Permissive as, letting the free market do it's stuff and letting their

Well, I can't say much more than that I am in complete agreement.

I would say that the most permissive monarchs concerning the free market were the Dutch Stadtholders; they were some of the earliest advocates of free trade, and they were extremely tolerant for their time. My view is that the early modern Dutch States-General is about as good a system of government as one can get in terms of private property.

Well King George the 3rd is just awesome in general....so yea.

[The New Lowlands]

without punishment. The consistency is paramount.

---------------------
Edit: We have gotten too off topic! Who was the most permissive of all kings? Permissive as, letting the free market do it's stuff and letting their

Well, I can't say much more than that I am in complete agreement.

I would say that the most permissive monarchs concerning the free market were the Dutch Stadtholders; they were some of the earliest advocates of free trade, and they were extremely tolerant for their time. My view is that the early modern Dutch States-General is about as good a system of government as one can get in terms of private property.

Well King George the 3rd is just awesome in general....so yea.

Except for the losing America part.

And the thing with him supporting the free market, IIRC, could largely be attributed to him handing over land to Parliament.

[Vazdania]

Well King George the 3rd is just awesome in general....so yea.

Except for the losing America part.

And the thing with him supporting the free market, IIRC, could largely be attributed to him handing over land to Parliament.

Eh.....He's still cool.

[Seleucas]

Well, I can't say much more than that I am in complete agreement.

I would say that the most permissive monarchs concerning the free market were the Dutch Stadtholders; they were some of the earliest advocates of free trade, and they were extremely tolerant for their time. My view is that the early modern Dutch States-General is about as good a system of government as one can get in terms of private property.

You should note that the Dutch Republic reached it's economic zenith in the First Stadtholderless Period. The Stadtholders were also not monarchs.

But the stadtholder would be the Prince of Orange, which makes it de facto an elective monarchy when considering that he would be chosen by the estates of the various provinces (although I would not deny that the nation referred to itself as a Republic.) One needn't be an absolute ruler to be a monarch, and in various nations monarchs shared power with some analogue of an Estates-General.

As far as the zenith, I am afraid I do not know enough about the specifics to comment either way. But I do greatly admire Dutch tolerance and commercialism during that general era.

Well King George the 3rd is just awesome in general....so yea.

Except for the losing America part.

I don't think there was anything that George III could have done to appease the Americans; even the ameliorating measures he had taken simply encouraged them to be even more obstreperous. And the British political establishment was, at best, reluctant to get their hands dirty in terms of fighting (even his generals seemed reluctant to crush the rebels, and instead wanted them to surrender to Britain nicely.)

[Distruzio]

to its enemies.

I don't think you can say that, considering that people like Distruzio are allowed to voice their opinions in democracies. Monarchies are generally the much deadlier system.

"You only get to make critiques of democracy because democracy is so awesome that it lets you" is as much a redress of the OP as saying that, because my kitten is cute, cuddly, and fun to play with that, when she shits every where and claws up the couch, I shouldn't find that disappointing.

Democracy has perks, I don't deny.

That doesn't make its shit smell like roses.

[Distruzio]

The problem with monarchy is that it's arbitrary as hell. Both the nobles and the commoners are locked into a position they never asked for by forces beyond their control. I guess you could have an elected monarchy, but that's just an autocratic democracy. Really the only thing monarchy has going for it is the mythical/aesthetic appeal.

How about 12: the Principality of Andorra, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Principality of Monaco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of the Vatican City.

Although Andorra and Vatican City are both elective monarchies.

And note that I never stated that I was defending either libertarian or absolutist monarchy - only objections to monarchy.

Those are all democracies.

No. They are not. In each, the sovereign of the State is a monarch. They are democratic nations ruled by a monarch. The varied scope and scale of the monarch's power does not negate the fact that they, each, are monarchies.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't think you can say that, considering that people like Distruzio are allowed to voice their opinions in democracies. Monarchies are generally the much deadlier system.

"You only get to make critiques of democracy because democracy is so awesome that it lets you" is as much a redress of the OP as saying that, because my kitten is cute, cuddly, and fun to play with that, when she shits every where and claws up the couch, I shouldn't find that disappointing.

Democracy has perks, I don't deny.

That doesn't make its shit smell like roses.

Nor does it mean that monarchies are necessarily always authoritarian regimes without freedom of expression. Nor, indeed, are all democratic republics particularly free or open. See my post about Socrates earlier in this very thread.

[Agritum]

It's Democratic in the same way that North Korea is democratic.
(IE not at all)
That's like saying the UK is a monarchy.
No.
It's a constitutional monarchy, with the monarchy having no power at all.

The UK is a monarchy, then.

Which as embraced democracy to some degree.

Granted, I think that the whole debacle is more about Republicanism Vs Monarchism, given that Constitutional Monarchies such as the UK or Spain are almost as democratic as their fellow European republics.

[The New Lowlands]

The problem with monarchy is that it's arbitrary as hell. Both the nobles and the commoners are locked into a position they never asked for by forces beyond their control. I guess you could have an elected monarchy, but that's just an autocratic democracy. Really the only thing monarchy has going for it is the mythical/aesthetic appeal.



Those are all democracies.

No. They are not. In each, the sovereign of the State is a monarch. They are democratic nations ruled by a monarch. The varied scope and scale of the monarch's power does not negate the fact that they, each, are monarchies.

They're not ruled by a monarch, though. The monarch is powerless. The political equivalent of people in Mickey Mouse suits at Disneyland.
They're all democracies, bar the Vatican City, which due to it's unique geopolitical position and internal politics can't really be cited as an example of good monarchical rule in the modern era.

[Distruzio]

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.

You're praise is, as always, well received and reciprocated.

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.

Indeed, you're correct. If I spoke of the more purely democratic direct variation ONLY, then that would have opened me up to an avenue of discussion that I wasn't, in particular, interested in. I understand that liberal representative democracy cannot, necessarily, be defined by unitary direct democracy for the same reasons that stalinism cannot, necessarily, be considered the same thing as communism or socialism.

Which is, interestingly enough, an observation so many of my detractors in this thread (and other threads where I have made my preferences for monarchy known) overlook in their haste to point a finger of shame at me. For them, monarchy is defined by absolutist monarchy. They might as well say that automobiles are defined by a Ford Ranger.

I'd rather just let them foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth while I address posters of actual merit.

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.

Lolz. No. You don't. The "bleating" comment was, specifically, directed at those who bristle at any critique of democracy or praise of anything not democratic. You (and many many others on the site) do not... and I listen to each of you. The others... not so much. And they know when I'm ignoring them. They tend to rage about it.

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.

While I choose to identify with monarchy for religious traditions that you hint at here, there are several utilitarian reasons for a monarchy that I hint at in the OP. In order to avoid the ridicule you point out - which is quite valid, I must say.

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.

I agree. Wholeheartedly so.

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.

Mmm... I'd disagree only in specific connotations but that would sidestep your point - which I take. I didn't realize that I had put that implication in that paragraph. I'll have to remember not to be such an ass next time.

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.

In monarchy there are checks and balances on the monarchs power and authority. Even in absolute monarchies.

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.

A monarchy need not be a multiparty state, which was my intended implication. While the case in individual monarchies currently existing are each unique wherein the authority of the sovereign is vested in a parliament or similar, this fact does intend suggest a tendency for the monarch to rise above the societal division that the democratist actually loathes. In order that society might enjoy a greater degree of solidarity and identity.

I will, however, after discussions in this thread, admit that this is not *always* the case and should not be portrayed as though it were.

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.

Even if we assume your critique here is accurate (I would dispute it but, like so many "critiques" of my OP on the first few pages, my dispute would sidestep your actual point) then we must recognize that the monarch's powers and freedoms are represented by the prosperity of the nation and peoples over which he rules, would we not? If the monarch be self-interested, as you presume, then would it not, therefore, make sense for him to seek to increase the value of that which his progeny will inherit? A satisfied population is a more productive population, after all. And a more productive population can afford to pay more taxes to the monarch.

So it would be in the monarchs best interest to increase the freedoms of his people, in order that he might secure and preserve his own power. Thus adding stability and prosperity to his reign.

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.

Nods*

Yes. I can see that.

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 don't. But a stable cult that endures throughout the lifetime of the individual is much preferable to a new cult every election cycle.

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.

Of course it is. It'd be uncouth (to say the least) to point at a specific politician and say, "aha! That bugger right there? Fuck him!"

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".

This has not been borne out historically. The regent has, more often than not, been a stabilizing effect during an unstable reign. I mean, sure, nutbags can come alongside nutbags, but the structure of power that guides a monarch does not institutionalize this as democracy does. ONLY grafters and liars succeed in democracy. To have an asshat surrounded by asshats of similar caliber every blue moon is, definitely, a better option.

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.

No? Do tell!

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.

Well, I'll admit that I'm a former (very minor) politician myself and that the ONLY people I encountered were the types that I, often, describe. Perhaps I allow my emotional rejection of politics as an admirable profession cloud my judgement here. I'll have to think about that.

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.

I don't think so. Then again... I'm biased as hell.

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.

Life = failure.