Monarchist Discussion Thread

[The New Lowlands]

Monarchy is an outdated system, a relic, that does not belong in the modern 21st-century world.

UK, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Spain....

1) A figurehead monarchy.
2) A shitty place to live.
3) A shitty place to live.
4) A figurehead monarchy.
5) A figurehead monarchy.
6) A figurehead monarchy.

Notice the pattern?

Prove it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a system of government today that works as democracy. I see many republics....but no democracies.

Democracy; /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/. Noun.
"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

[Vazdania]

UK, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Spain....

1) A figurehead monarchy.
2) A shitty place to live.
3) A shitty place to live.
4) A figurehead monarchy.
5) A figurehead monarchy.
6) A figurehead monarchy.

Notice the pattern?

I'm sorry, but I don't see a system of government today that works as democracy. I see many republics....but no democracies.

Democracy; /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/. Noun.
"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

That's a hijacked definition of Democracy.

[United British Union]

Monarchy is an outdated system, a relic, that does not belong in the modern 21st-century world.

Nonsense. Monarchy is not outdated, and it very much has a place in this, the 21st century.

I agree with you in every way.

[The New Lowlands]

Yeah, it's called consistency.

Maybe, but it still makes no sense. Somehow, monarchy being inherently bad just because it is old is a good argument, but monarchy being inherently good because it is old is a poor argument. Any logical person can see that both these arguments are foolish, but in my experience, republicans always call up monarchists when they use the latter yet act puzzled when they use the former and monarchists point out their hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical to say absolute or executive monarchy- which is pretty much universally what that statement refers to- is outdated, because it is, because monarchs- who are taught to be entitled to their power- have a genuine, clearly visible tendency to make for shitty rulers.

[Dangelia]

UK, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Spain....

1) A figurehead monarchy.
2) A shitty place to live.
3) A shitty place to live.
4) A figurehead monarchy.
5) A figurehead monarchy.
6) A figurehead monarchy.

Notice the pattern?

I'm sorry, but I don't see a system of government today that works as democracy. I see many republics....but no democracies.

Democracy; /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/. Noun.
"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Liechtenstein's monarch actually has power, as does Belgium.

[The New Lowlands]

1) A figurehead monarchy.
2) A shitty place to live.
3) A shitty place to live.
4) A figurehead monarchy.
5) A figurehead monarchy.
6) A figurehead monarchy.

Notice the pattern?



Democracy; /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/. Noun.
"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

That's a hijacked definition of Democracy.

No, it's literally the definition of Democracy. Google it right now.

[The New Lowlands]

1) A figurehead monarchy.
2) A shitty place to live.
3) A shitty place to live.
4) A figurehead monarchy.
5) A figurehead monarchy.
6) A figurehead monarchy.

Notice the pattern?



Democracy; /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/. Noun.
"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Liechtenstein's monarch actually has power, as does Belgium.

I live next to Belgium. Not really, no.

[Jimanistan]

The executive branch does not command by virtue of its own authority, it does by virtue of its authority, enforce.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. The Executive branch in quite a few countries (such as the US) can issue special orders (i.e. 'commands'), issue pardons, and do all sorts of other things that I, not being a legal scholar, am not familiar with. More literally, I believe the British monarch is technically the Commander-in-chief of the military (much like the US President), though effectively acts as a figurehead.

[Vazdania]

That's a hijacked definition of Democracy.

No, it's literally the definition of Democracy. Google it right now.

Democracy: government by the people; especially, rule of the majority.

[The New Lowlands]

No, it's literally the definition of Democracy. Google it right now.

Democracy: government by the people; especially, rule of the majority.

Yep. Generally indirect.

[Old Tyrannia]

Maybe, but it still makes no sense. Somehow, monarchy being inherently bad just because it is old is a good argument, but monarchy being inherently good because it is old is a poor argument. Any logical person can see that both these arguments are foolish, but in my experience, republicans always call up monarchists when they use the latter yet act puzzled when they use the former and monarchists point out their hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical to say absolute or executive monarchy- which is pretty much universally what that statement refers to- is outdated, because it is, because monarchs- who are taught to be entitled to their power- have a genuine, clearly visible tendency to make for shitty rulers.

In red is the bit lacking from Regnum Dominae's post. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an attempt to form an argument.

Just saying "monarchy is outdated", however, as if that is an argument in itself is ridiculously poor debating, and no better than simply saying "I support the monarchy because of tradition," without qualifying that statement.

[Dangelia]

The executive branch does not command by virtue of its own authority, it does by virtue of its authority, enforce.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. The Executive branch in quite a few countries (such as the US) can issue special orders (i.e. 'commands'), issue pardons, and do all sorts of other things that I, not being a legal scholar, am not familiar with. More literally, I believe the British monarch is technically the Commander-in-chief of the military (much like the US President), though effectively acts as a figurehead.

Hen saying that the authority that you have I the executive branch is solely for the purpose of enforcing laws.

[Vazdania]

The executive branch does not command by virtue of its own authority, it does by virtue of its authority, enforce.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. The Executive branch in quite a few countries (such as the US) can issue special orders (i.e. 'commands'), issue pardons, and do all sorts of other things that I, not being a legal scholar, am not familiar with. More literally, I believe the British monarch is technically the Commander-in-chief of the military (much like the US President), though effectively acts as a figurehead.

The Executive Branch need only enforce the law. They do not by virtue of being an executive branch need to have the power to issue special commands.

So as stated previously, the executive branch does not by virtue of its own authority, command, it does by virtue of its own authority, enforce the law.

Many of today's government have chosen to vest military authority in the executive branch, but this is not something which is inherently part of the executive branch.

[The New Lowlands]

It's not hypocritical to say absolute or executive monarchy- which is pretty much universally what that statement refers to- is outdated, because it is, because monarchs- who are taught to be entitled to their power- have a genuine, clearly visible tendency to make for shitty rulers.

In red is the bit lacking from Regnum Dominae's post. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an attempt to form an argument.

Just saying "monarchy is outdated", however, as if that is an argument in itself is ridiculously poor debating, and no better than simply saying "I support the monarchy because of tradition," without qualifying that statement.

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

[Old Tyrannia]

In red is the bit lacking from Regnum Dominae's post. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an attempt to form an argument.

Just saying "monarchy is outdated", however, as if that is an argument in itself is ridiculously poor debating, and no better than simply saying "I support the monarchy because of tradition," without qualifying that statement.

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now, because it is clear you have no intention of having a reasoned discussion.

[The Scientific States]

Monarchism is bad m'kay.

Although, I don't have a problem with Constitutional Monarchies.

[The Kingdom Historia]

[/color]
In red is the bit lacking from Regnum Dominae's post. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an attempt to form an argument.

Just saying "monarchy is outdated", however, as if that is an argument in itself is ridiculously poor debating, and no better than simply saying "I support the monarchy because of tradition," without qualifying that statement.

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

Any and all forms of government is outdated because thy have shown to have failed one way or another.

[Vazdania]

Monarchism is bad m'kay.

Although, I don't have a problem with Constitutional Monarchies.

Monarchism is good.

[The New Lowlands]

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

Any and all forms of government is outdated because thy have shown to have failed one way or another.

Just because a form of government isn't perfect doesn't mean it's outdated.

[The Scientific States]

Monarchism is bad m'kay.

Although, I don't have a problem with Constitutional Monarchies.

Monarchism is good.

I find it undemocratic and elitist. It's hardly any different then a dictatorship. This is if we're talking about absolute monarchies. Purely ceremonial monarchies are just "meh."

[Vazdania]

Any and all forms of government is outdated because thy have shown to have failed one way or another.

Just because a form of government isn't perfect doesn't mean it's outdated.

To true! Thanks for helping Monarchies cause!

[The New Lowlands]

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now, because it is clear you have no intention of having a reasoned discussion.

If you can't be bothered to respond, don't post.

[Frihetskommunen]

[/color]
In red is the bit lacking from Regnum Dominae's post. I don't agree with it, but at least it's an attempt to form an argument.

Just saying "monarchy is outdated", however, as if that is an argument in itself is ridiculously poor debating, and no better than simply saying "I support the monarchy because of tradition," without qualifying that statement.

No, it's fair enough to say "Monarchy (as in, absolute/executive monarchy) is outdated," because that's the case. Sure, you should be able to clarify why it is, but otherwise it's pretty much fair to say that we have much better systems of governance.

I agree. I believe that it is up to the persons arguing for an ideology to prove that the ideology is valid. If it is an old ideology (as monarchism is) and the proponents of the ideology can't prove its validity (which I don't think anyone has when it comes to monarchism, not yet anyway) then I feel like you can safely say that the ideology is outdated.

EDIT: By "old ideology" I mean an ideology that was widely applied centuries ago but is not applied as widely in modern times.

[The New Lowlands]

Just because a form of government isn't perfect doesn't mean it's outdated.

To true! Thanks for helping Monarchies cause!

On the other hand, when a form of government fails at just about everything compared to others, it very clearly is.

[The Kingdom Historia]

Any and all forms of government is outdated because thy have shown to have failed one way or another.

Just because a form of government isn't perfect doesn't mean it's outdated.

Well something outdated isnt always bad. Its all a matter of preference and comfortablity