Objections to monarchy

[Conserative Morality]

Monarchs are a stain upon the face of humanity. My objections to monarchy of any kind are moral, rather than practical. My objections to absolutism are the same as to any dictatorship.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Monarchs are a stain upon the face of humanity. My objections to monarchy of any kind are moral, rather than practical. My objections to absolutism are the same as to any dictatorship.

B-but they've been around a long time! And they've got shiny hats! Clearly that makes them the best!

[Blakk Metal]

Yes. I am.

The judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives, they aren't hereditary, and their highest purpose is to serve a Constitution that protects the rights of the marginalized, not themselves. I really don't see how an hereditary judiciary would be especially good, especially if its highest good were itself.

The SCOTUS isn't democratic at all. If you want to see a democratic court, you should see SCOCAL.

[Conserative Morality]

B-but they've been around a long time! And they've got shiny hats! Clearly that makes them the best!

There is only one profession that that argument works for.

[Minarchist States]

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!

ROFL.

[Vazdania]

Monarchs are a stain upon the face of humanity. My objections to monarchy of any kind are moral, rather than practical. My objections to absolutism are the same as to any dictatorship.

Constitutional Executive Monarchy means nothing to you???

[The Nuclear Fist]

Monarchs are a stain upon the face of humanity. My objections to monarchy of any kind are moral, rather than practical. My objections to absolutism are the same as to any dictatorship.

Constitutional Executive Monarchy means nothing to you???

As it should, considering most executive monarchies are shit.

[Ikigain]

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!

You deserve a fucking award!

[Tlaceceyaya]

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!

You deserve a fucking award!

For quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

[Kaapstad]

Classic monarchy is vastly superior to modern "democracy", which is really just popularly elected aristocracy. There was vastly more freedom in every respect.

[The New Lowlands]

Classic monarchy is vastly superior to modern "democracy", which is really just popularly elected aristocracy. There was vastly more freedom in every respect.

Source?

[Vazdania]

Constitutional Executive Monarchy means nothing to you???

As it should, considering most executive monarchies are shit.

Currently yes, No denying that. however Britain a few Hundred years ago would like a word with you.

[Minarchist States]

Classic monarchy is vastly superior to modern "democracy", which is really just popularly elected aristocracy. There was vastly more freedom in every respect.

Also bonobos. Bonobos make good rulers. But not chimpanzees. Monkey see, monkey do. Monkeys infuse religion and the state, creating some quasi fascist dictatorship. And they cannot be impeached.

[The New Lowlands]

As it should, considering most executive monarchies are shit.

Currently yes, No denying that. however Britain a few Hundred years ago would like a word with you.

You mean Britain a few hundred years ago with the head chopping and the plague and the lack of social progress and the general dreary shit quality of life and no hope of improvement because the aristocracy would have anyone with a new idea shot?

[Minarchist States]

As it should, considering most executive monarchies are shit.

Currently yes, No denying that. however Britain a few Hundred years ago would like a word with you.

Off topic but how often do you change your avatar??? I am also asexual, as love done me no kindness.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Currently yes, No denying that. however Britain a few Hundred years ago would like a word with you.

Still shit, it can take its word and fuck right off.

[Vazdania]

Currently yes, No denying that. however Britain a few Hundred years ago would like a word with you.

Off topic but how often do you change your avatar??? I am also asexual, as love done me no kindness.

I change it as often as I feel? Am I required to keep it the same???

[Minarchist States]

Off topic but how often do you change your avatar??? I am also asexual, as love done me no kindness.

I change it as often as I feel? Am I required to keep it the same???

No, its just every time I see you with a different flag. Relax.

[Meryuma]

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 republics, but they are democracies. I never claimed they're not monarchies.

Then I will put a more in-depth opinion of a monarchy.

Now, I do consider myself romanticizing about the return of a Chinese empire. There's a lot of legitimate pretenders for the monarch to be re-established. It would certainly put pride in China back and me, being a Chinese descendant, would gladly return back there if possible. The current Chinese people's republic is a farce and the sooner it collapses, the better.

However, there's no guarantee that the same problems the empire faced will not return. There's no guarantee that a new re-established empire would solve anything. In fact, I would say it would anger the lower class even more. It would also create conflicts with semi-autonomous states such as Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. A newly found empire would also need the most experience bureaucrats, of which I can no doubt, would come from the former republic.

Now then, let's ignore those problems. Let's pretend that we have a wise emperor, and the new Chinese empire is a stateless monarch. Hell, let's pretend China can defend itself despite being stateless, from many other countries. Do you know what will go wrong?

Nothing.

This is the eerie part. Nothing would go wrong. It might even turn into a new golden age for China. I don't however, assume that all of the emperor's successor is going to be wise. Neither should you. Just like every other golden ages, it must end. It cannot be perpetual. This is what I notice about empires who had their golden ages, that they decline rapidly or slowly after that. This is because without problems, nations can't evolve. If we don't have some kind of conflict we must solve, we'll grow stagnant. That is my problem with your idea. If everything goes perfectly, it'll come down like a house of cards when it's not. For example, when one of the Chinese emperor was ousted, the was a new regent who was...unsuprisingly, unable to handle the situation. The Japanese was waiting to make war with them, the European nations wanted more of their land, and despite sweeping reforms made by the empress dowager, the empire was doomed to fail. The Chinese empire declined a long time ago and once that decline starts, it just can't stop.

It can't stop because declines in a monarch is hard to detect without the conflicts I mentioned. Historians agree largely that the Qing Dynasty declined in the 1840s. China could've fixed all of it's problems if they followed Japan, who were in contrast, able to modernize from a backwater agricultural country to an industrial powerhouse in less than 30 years. On the other side, we all know right now that the U.S Congress is not doing a good job. We know that because of the divisiveness. What you seem to think is a weakness of democracy, is one of the strongest perk of it.

Now with that said, Japan is a monarch, but it was in a civil war, called the Boshin war during the 1850s. Remember how I said they modernized? There was a, key word here, conflict in the country. Between traditionalism and modernization. That's not the point though. The point is that they had an internal conflict. Not everyone obeyed the emperor. They had a divided population. Funnily, only about 100 years later (1940s) when nationalism united the country and, well, you know how world war 2 ends.

I have history to back me up on this. Some political scientists noted correlations between the Chinese empire and the other empires that fell such as the Russian and the French. What you want from monarchy is what brings a monarchy down. So I'm not totally putting your idea to the garbage heap. I am pointing out that you want the worst quality of a monarch government.

Huh... You raise VERY interesting points against me OP. I've never seen them before. I like that.

So, from your perspective, democracy is preferable to monarchy because, through the political conflict, society prospers. That, I think, is a marvelous observation that, I'm ashamed to admit, I'd never considered. Hah! The fucking anarcho-capitalist who elevates the idea of prosperity through competition fails to apply that same maxim to the political realm.

This is a notch in favor of democracy I won't soon forget, Norstal. Well played.

Indeed. This exchange is at a way higher echelon of quality than most of NSG.

You were asked something specific:

Right. I responded by ignoring his request and answered with examples of the actual subject in the OP.

One could argue that societies such as the UK or Sweden are successful in their governance despite rather than because of their monarchy. The proper way to judge monarchies vs republics in that capacity would be judging democratic monarchies vs democratic republics (actual democratic republics, not the doublespeak kind).

I know and agree. I called them out as non-anarchists.... which was ironic considering the common critique against right-anarchism.

I guess you could be a nihilistic egoist type.

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

Well, I'd say anarchy, but I'm Meryuma.

[Vazdania]

I change it as often as I feel? Am I required to keep it the same???

No, its just every time I see you with a different flag. Relax.

Yes, whenever I feel like it I'll change flags....Mostly because I get tired of looking at the same flag every time I log on.

[Minarchist States]

:rofl:

No, its just every time I see you with a different flag. Relax.

Yes, whenever I feel like it I'll change flags....Mostly because I get tired of looking at the same flag every time I log on.

I don't blame you, it's refreshing isn't it? I just changed from a plain circle M to a high quality pic of Atlas.

[Libertarian California]

:rofl:
Yes, whenever I feel like it I'll change flags....Mostly because I get tired of looking at the same flag every time I log on.

I don't blame you, it's refreshing isn't it? I just changed from a plain circle M to a high quality pic of Atlas.

I once changed my flag. In fact, it looked cooler than my current one.

But it didn't feel like it belonged to Libertarian California.

(it was the current California state flag with the Gadsden rattlesnake replacing the bear)

[The Nuclear Fist]

(it was the current California state flag with the Gadsden rattlesnake replacing the bear)

It's good you changed it, the Gadsden rattlesnake is overused and bland.

[Libertarian California]

(it was the current California state flag with the Gadsden rattlesnake replacing the bear)

It's good you changed it, the Gadsden rattlesnake is overused and bland.

Its original meaning is lost anyways. While it used to be a symbol of resistance to tyranny (real or imagined), it's now largely a banner for the right-wing (and this is coming from a right-winger).

Nonetheless, I still have on my wall, because to me, it still means a resistance to tyranny.

To be honest, I wish the Occupy movement used the flag, too.

[The Puppet State Of Mengjiang]

The difference between monarchy and a dictatorship is the monarch stands for something/