Objections to monarchy

[The Nationalist Republic of America]

You shouldn't be the head of a nation just because you were born from the right parents.

[Ierm]

Well true monarchy in ancient times wasn't about "state" or "nation. A kingdom was simply the territory over which you ruled and the people were subject to your law.

[Vazdania]

You shouldn't be the head of a nation just because you were born from the right parents.

Says who?

[Maurepas]

Look, you can't just have one family rule over the entire government.

It's important that the people get to choose between the Bush and Clinton families every four to eight years or so.

[Forster Keys]

You shouldn't be the head of a nation just because you were born from the right parents.

Says who?

Says pretty much everyone in whole lot of societies. That's why there isn't too many monarchies anymore.

[SaintB]

I'm not keen on the idea that someone gets to tell me what to do because they were born into a certain position. There is enough of that economically, at least in a democratic system there is the infinitesimal chance that someone who isn't born lucky has a say.

[Orcoa]

I'm normally agasint Monarchy since its a government that has no way of doing any check and balances.

Now a Democratic Monarchy like the U.K. is fine with me

[Old Tyrannia]

You shouldn't be the head of a nation just because you were born from the right parents.

But it's OK if you win a popularity contest, amirite?

[Shard_Head]

You shouldn't be the head of a nation just because you were born from the right parents.

But it's OK if you win a popularity contest, amirite?

It's a step up, yeah.

[Old Tyrannia]

But it's OK if you win a popularity contest, amirite?

It's a step up, yeah.

I disagree. Sure, hereditary rule gets you the odd Ivan the Terrible or Henry VIII, but elections can land you with an Adolf Hitler, or a Robert Mugabe, or more commonly a George W. Bush or Tony Blair. And there's less chance in a democracy of getting a Claudius or a George VI.

[Shard_Head]

It's a step up, yeah.

I disagree. Sure, hereditary rule gets you the odd Ivan the Terrible or Henry VIII, but elections can land you with an Adolf Hitler, or a Robert Mugabe, or more commonly a George W. Bush or Tony Blair.

So you're saying the possibility of shitty individuals is present in both system and therefore that's a tie* that can't be used in favour or against either. Excellent.

*it's not.

[Grave_n_idle]

I disagree. Sure, hereditary rule gets you the odd Ivan the Terrible or Henry VIII, but elections can land you with an Adolf Hitler, or a Robert Mugabe, or more commonly a George W. Bush or Tony Blair.

So you're saying the possibility of shitty individuals is present in both system and therefore that's a tie* that can't be used in favour or against either. Excellent.

*it's not.

No, I think the argument was actually that you're less likely to get a reluctant hero (like George VI), and more likely to get a power-hungry would-be-despot via popular vote.

[Shard_Head]

So you're saying the possibility of shitty individuals is present in both system and therefore that's a tie* that can't be used in favour or against either. Excellent.

*it's not.

No, I think the argument was actually that you're less likely to get a reluctant hero (like George VI), and more likely to get a power-hungry would-be-despot via popular vote.

I don't see why that conclusion would be jumped to. Nor can I see how George VI is able to be compared to someone in a PM (or equivalent) position of authority.

[Ikigain]

my favorite color is red

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I think the argument was actually that you're less likely to get a reluctant hero (like George VI), and more likely to get a power-hungry would-be-despot via popular vote.

I don't see why that conclusion would be jumped to. Nor can I see how George VI is able to be compared to someone in a PM (or equivalent) position of authority.

Well, the reason the conclusion might be jumped to is actually fairly obvious, if you think about it.

George VI was a reluctant monarch, whereas Hitler was a power-hungry-would-be-despot. Which one of these men is more likely to have put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power? Even if you didn't know the history - just from those descriptions?

Clearly, the reluctant monarch is far less likely to have "put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power" - hence, THAT is the kind of person who is less likely to be the leadership figure elected by a popular vote.

It's not really a conclusion you have to jump to - it's the nature of the political beast, that the sort of people who want to get elected are the sort of people that want to get elected.

[Genivaria]

I don't see why that conclusion would be jumped to. Nor can I see how George VI is able to be compared to someone in a PM (or equivalent) position of authority.

Well, the reason the conclusion might be jumped to is actually fairly obvious, if you think about it.

George VI was a reluctant monarch, whereas Hitler was a power-hungry-would-be-despot. Which one of these men is more likely to have put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power? Even if you didn't know the history - just from those descriptions?

Clearly, the reluctant monarch is far less likely to have "put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power" - hence, THAT is the kind of person who is less likely to be the leadership figure elected by a popular vote.

It's not really a conclusion you have to jump to - it's the nature of the political beast, that the sort of people who want to get elected are the sort of people that want to get elected.

So if I personally sought election?

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, the reason the conclusion might be jumped to is actually fairly obvious, if you think about it.

George VI was a reluctant monarch, whereas Hitler was a power-hungry-would-be-despot. Which one of these men is more likely to have put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power? Even if you didn't know the history - just from those descriptions?

Clearly, the reluctant monarch is far less likely to have "put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power" - hence, THAT is the kind of person who is less likely to be the leadership figure elected by a popular vote.

It's not really a conclusion you have to jump to - it's the nature of the political beast, that the sort of people who want to get elected are the sort of people that want to get elected.

So if I personally sought election?

Then, based on the above, you are more likely to be the sort of person who put's himself forward, campaigns and politically contrives a course to power. You are more likely to be power-hungry. You are less likely to be someone reluctantly pushed into power. Is that what you mean?

[Genivaria]

So if I personally sought election?

Then, based on the above, you are more likely to be the sort of person who put's himself forward, campaigns and politically contrives a course to power. You are more likely to be power-hungry. You are less likely to be someone reluctantly pushed into power. Is that what you mean?

I mean does that somehow make me a would be tyrant?

[Grave_n_idle]

Then, based on the above, you are more likely to be the sort of person who put's himself forward, campaigns and politically contrives a course to power. You are more likely to be power-hungry. You are less likely to be someone reluctantly pushed into power. Is that what you mean?

I mean does that somehow make me a would be tyrant?

Does it make you a tyrant? No.

And that's not what was being said.

But you're more likely to be power hungry if you chase the office, than if you were forced into it.

[Free Soviets]

I don't see why that conclusion would be jumped to. Nor can I see how George VI is able to be compared to someone in a PM (or equivalent) position of authority.

Well, the reason the conclusion might be jumped to is actually fairly obvious, if you think about it.

George VI was a reluctant monarch, whereas Hitler was a power-hungry-would-be-despot. Which one of these men is more likely to have put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power? Even if you didn't know the history - just from those descriptions?

Clearly, the reluctant monarch is far less likely to have "put himself forward, campaigned and politically contrived a course to power" - hence, THAT is the kind of person who is less likely to be the leadership figure elected by a popular vote.

It's not really a conclusion you have to jump to - it's the nature of the political beast, that the sort of people who want to get elected are the sort of people that want to get elected.

it seems preferable to have a leader that wants the job and has to prove themselves at least minimally competent at managing large-scale organizations and multi-pronged campaigns to get it, rather than just give it to whoever is next in some preordained line and hope they are a 'reluctant hero' rather than just generally ineffectual, with the occasional side order of 'power-mad tyrant'.

i'm not sure the lack of need to seek power would counteract the effects of being born knowing you get to rule in terms of power hunger and abuse.

at the very least, looking at the history of monarchs, it seems to me that they don't do significantly better than democracies on this score.

[European Socialist Republic]

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[The New Lowlands]

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Heh.

[Siceo]

I think the idea has something very important and lacks something very important.

It has the elements of "human fallacy". A crazy monarch that wants to burn everyone with fire (whose regent is essentially an impotent puppet installed by the nobles to do whatever they want) aside, if central planning committees were unable to provide an awesome quality of life, why would a single person and their elite cadre of advisers (with vested interests of staying as such) be able to do any better at all? How can one person possibly govern for any sized group of people without being dictatorial to some degree? And if they aren't, then what about their heirs? Their regents? etc...

And what about experimentation? Only by having power over our own lives can we decide what works best for us (and what may become useful to society at large).

By no means is this a defence of democracy. Democracy is broken and most larger democracies as they currently exist are nearly completely useless to get anything long-term done.

Monarchy and anarchism are to me pretty close to the opposite ends of the socio-economic spectrum. If you have a monarch dictating only social norms and customs, why have a monarchy? These can be determined better by the anarcho part of this equation (ie people can decide for themselves what they want out of life and create the communities they want to live in, and trade with those whom they want to trade with). And if they are dictating economic policies, it's even worse. Why would a single person be capable of better decisions than every single individual making their own? And if the monarch dictates both, then it is no longer a fusion and instead absolute monarchy.

Lastly, monarchs have in the past/ for the most part tended to revile change. I know there are some counter-examples to this, but generally maintaining the status quo is important if only to avoid the current that will lead to their overthrow. Given our current rate of change, I think this is more than unacceptable, it's dangerous. Most importantly though: it is dependent on the person. Frankly, the concept of leaving the fate of a civilization to a single person frightens me; people are generally good, but a person with absolute power can do all sorts of things that might seriously hurt humanity as a species.

[Ikigain]

I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but the biggest criticism of monarchy is that any monarch most likely will give birth to a child unfit to rule. Intelligence isn't that heritable, people in different families have vastly different degrees of intellect. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that a mentally ill monarch would be restrained, but the problem is what if the monarch gives birth to a man with a common intellect? That's the problem with democracy, that the commoner is an idiot. I think you proposed that a few regents would keep the king's idiot son from being in power. Fair enough. The problem i can see with that is the regents might be asshokes. Like they're all libertarians and the king gives birth to a socialist, so they just discredit him and have him locked away.

[Blasveck]

I think the idea has something very important and lacks something very important.

It has the elements of "human fallacy". A crazy monarch that wants to burn everyone with fire (whose regent is essentially an impotent puppet installed by the nobles to do whatever they want) aside, if central planning committees were unable to provide an awesome quality of life, why would a single person and their elite cadre of advisers (with vested interests of staying as such) be able to do any better at all? How can one person possibly govern for any sized group of people without being dictatorial to some degree? And if they aren't, then what about their heirs? Their regents? etc...

And what about experimentation? Only by having power over our own lives can we decide what works best for us (and what may become useful to society at large).

By no means is this a defence of democracy. Democracy is broken and most larger democracies as they currently exist are nearly completely useless to get anything long-term done.

Monarchy and anarchism are to me pretty close to the opposite ends of the socio-economic spectrum. If you have a monarch dictating only social norms and customs, why have a monarchy? These can be determined better by the anarcho part of this equation (ie people can decide for themselves what they want out of life and create the communities they want to live in, and trade with those whom they want to trade with). And if they are dictating economic policies, it's even worse. Why would a single person be capable of better decisions than every single individual making their own? And if the monarch dictates both, then it is no longer a fusion and instead absolute monarchy.

Lastly, monarchs have in the past/ for the most part tended to revile change. I know there are some counter-examples to this, but generally maintaining the status quo is important if only to avoid the current that will lead to their overthrow. Given our current rate of change, I think this is more than unacceptable, it's dangerous. Most importantly though: it is dependent on the person. Frankly, the concept of leaving the fate of a civilization to a single person frightens me; people are generally good, but a person with absolute power can do all sorts of things that might seriously hurt humanity as a species.

If Monarchy is unworkable and Democracy broken, what is the alternative?
What do you propose is the better way to organize society?