Do you agree with Democracy?

[Arcov]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

Louis XVI had signed a constitution before getting deposed. Therefore, even if the revolution failed (or got thwarted by Louis XVIII), France would no longer be an absolute monarchy.
And no, France would have much, MUCH LESS problems if the revolution failed. MUCH less.

What exactly would have been fixed?

[New Socialist South Africa]

No actually. The British declared war on the Zulus after issuing them with an ultimatum. It wasn't approved by the British parliament though, it was organised by the local British administrator Sir Bartle Frere to increase his own power, so that can be put down to a downside within the British Empire rather than of it I guess.

1) Hmm, does make me question how parliament would have responded then, had it been handed to them first. They dealt relatively better with the Natives in North America than the US did, so maybe they would have gone to negotiations over whatever it was Mr. Frere felt he needed to demand from them.

I'm not denying that the USA and many other democracies haven't done messed up things, they just haven't done as many bad things as absolute monarchies and dictatorships however.

2) That's very debatable I'm sorry to say. I'm not a huge fan of absolute monarchy (non-sovereign monarchy is different), but at least in Arabia they give women paid maternity leave. Of course, in other ways the Saudis are HORRIDLY behind the rest of the world, at least in social terms, but seriously, how can it be that the US is one of the only countries on Earth to not have paid maternity leave? Anyways, one other thing the US did was the Tuskegee experiments, which they did in around the 60's-70's I think.

Furthermore, the USA during the 'Indian' (Native American) Wars cannot be called a democracy. Any nation that does not allow black people or women to vote isn't a democracy no matter how you try to spin it. The USA did do terrible things while it was a democracy however (Vietnam War, Iraqi War, etc).

3) And Tuskegee, as a democracy. However, I'm sorry to say, but this is sort of a "No True Scotsman" argument. A democracy is, at the end of the day, a system where the leadership is put in power by people whom vote them in. Women and black persons were, at the time, not considered "persons", so I was told in History class. The US was, undeniably, a democracy, whether they acted like what we want to pretend democracy should be, or not. One more reason I don't like democracy, we pretend it should be one thing or another, but democracy is just a system of selecting leadership, nothing more. It's just as capable of evil as Fascism and Communism are, maybe even more so because we like to pretend it isn't.

1)Probably yes.

2) Comparing the most prolific dictator and monarch killers as compared to the most prolific democratically elected killers really does have the democratically elected killers trailing a far way behind.

3 )According to this logic the Saxon monarchy was democratic, as the Saxon noble families used to vote amongst themselves who among them would become the new king of England. That simply isn't the case. I suggest you read the political theories of Huntington and Abrahamsen. They disagree on a lot of areas, but both agree that the USA was not a democracy prior to the granting of the vote to blacks and women, just like South Africa was not a democracy under Apartheid. They are two of the most highly regarded political philosophers of recent time. Huntington's views in particular are highly consistent with the modern western conception of democracy.

[New Socialist South Africa]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

Louis XVI had signed a constitution before getting deposed. Therefore, even if the revolution failed (or got thwarted by Louis XVIII), France would no longer be an absolute monarchy.
And no, France would have much, MUCH LESS problems if the revolution failed. MUCH less.

So you're arguing in favour of a constitutional monarchy then?

[Leritorius]

Also, might be worth noting, but I do find it strange irony that the French got both Napoleon, plus (I believe) another monarch at some point who ruled as a Non-Sovereign monarch, or something along those lines, and he was apparently quite popular. I just mention this because if they were willing to accept to monarchs they thought were good, why couldn't they accept cooling down for a bit and punishing the nobles in some non-violent way? As I said, the army no longer supported the nobles, so they posed pretty much no threat to the people any more.

The nobles were calling international favors and fleeing the country. Royalist revolts were breaking out across the country. The nobles were bribing their way out of prison. Every day they weren't tried was a day they risked fleeing. The nobles dug their own grave with how violently they repressed the peasants.

Napoleon, despite being a monarch, liberalized the social structure and instituted a meritocracy. So did the other popular monarch(who had to win an election first).

The other monarch was Louis-Philippe I, and he ruled as a constitutional monarch. But it is to say that he never had to win an election, if not in the masonic lodges... He, on the contrary, usuped the throne from King Louis XIX and did what his three-point friends told him to do.

The nobles dug their own grave with how violently they repressed the peasants.

Knowing that Louis XV ordered his royal pardon on the guy who tried to stab him,
Knowing how Louis XVI refused any repression against the rebels, despite having been proposed to multiple times...
Knowing that Louis XVI ordered no response to the rebels while they were bombing the EMPTY Bastille (there were 7 prisoners in it at July 14th 1789)
Knowing that Louis XVI had some revolutionaries enter the palace of Versailles to make their claims in front of him...
Knowing that Louis XVI stated in his testament asking his son and supporters to not pursue vengeance for his death...

I think you're going just a bit overboard with your peasant-repression shit, don't you think ?

[Merent]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France. The famines are to be blamed on agricultural technology and not the king and the king can be accredited for keeping Frances Army top notch. The failure of 1940 would never be possible if Frnace was an absolute monarchy in the inerwar years that kepts Frances military top noth like the kings did.

[New Socialist South Africa]

He didn't build the Palace of Versailles as a tourist attraction though, he built it as his own personal summer palace. And, while he may have cared for the common more than other monarchs (I'm dubious about that however) many of his people still starved and lived in poverty while he lived in opulence. Louis the 16th is particularly well known for his excessive meals in time of famine, although granted he is another monarch.

He lived in Versailles Full-time. And, as true as are the cases of famine, they were due to the wars and poor climatic conditions much more than to Louis' personal will.
AS for Louis XVI, it's also obvious that he would be particularly known for this, knowing that history classes today do only say this. This, and the infamous sentence "Let them eat cake" which was falsely given to Marie-Antoinette (while it's known today that this sentence came from a republican writer called Jean-Jacques Rousseau...)
But to get back to Louis XVI, I suggest you get your hands on his testament, which got released & published. You would then see if you read the mind of a careless tyrant...

I will try to do so. It is also true that wars and climatic conditions did bring about famine. I am also aware Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, he and the royal court did live a life of extreme opulence while a large portion of the nation starved. He also negatively effected an effective economic turnaround by firing numerous popular finance advisors and ultimately gave the people only very limited power. He is an example of an ineffective and out of touch king.

[Shilya]

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Yet todays poor are in less danger of starving. Turns out they would have been wealthy then.

In other words, comparing "has nothing" poor to "has little, but enough to live" poor doesn't work.

The famines are to be blamed on agricultural technology and not the king and the king can be accredited for keeping Frances Army top notch. The failure of 1940 would never be possible if Frnace was an absolute monarchy in the inerwar years that kepts Frances military top noth like the kings did.

Yes, it would have been. It wasn't a question of quality or quantity, it was leadership and strategy that did France in.

[Leritorius]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

[Arcov]

The other monarch was Louis-Philippe I, and he ruled as a constitutional monarch. But it is to say that he never had to win an election, if not in the masonic lodges... He, on the contrary, usuped the throne from King Louis XIX and did what his three-point friends told him to do.

He wasn't the most popular of monarchs. The popular one I was referring to was Napoleon III.

Knowing that Louis XV ordered his royal pardon on the guy who tried to stab him,

A singular incident to a man working for nobles.

Knowing how Louis XVI refused any repression against the rebels, despite having been proposed to multiple times...

So the nobles did it for him.

Knowing that Louis XVI ordered no response to the rebels while they were bombing the EMPTY Bastille (there were 7 prisoners in it at July 14th 1789)

Because he was afraid they would attack him and he'd lose.

Knowing that Louis XVI had some revolutionaries enter the palace of Versailles to make their claims in front of him...

And promptly rejected them.

Knowing that Louis XVI stated in his testament asking his son and supporters to not pursue vengeance for his death...

Which was promptly ignored.

I think you're going just a bit overboard with your peasant-repression shit, don't you think ?

[/quote]
Overboard? Why do you think they revolted int he first place? The nobles dominated the economy and dominated the political system. People who resisted them were killed. People who spoke out were killed. People who attempted to gain capital failed.

[Arcov]

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

To pay off his taxes to the Kingdom, not the noble.

[Immoren]

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France. The famines are to be blamed on agricultural technology and not the king and the king can be accredited for keeping Frances Army top notch. The failure of 1940 would never be possible if Frnace was an absolute monarchy in the inerwar years that kepts Frances military top noth like the kings did.

That's obviously equitable, because socio-politic-tech landscape is exanctly same now and the,

[New Socialist South Africa]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France. The famines are to be blamed on agricultural technology and not the king and the king can be accredited for keeping Frances Army top notch. The failure of 1940 would never be possible if Frnace was an absolute monarchy in the inerwar years that kepts Frances military top noth like the kings did.

Yes, however, the taxes of the nobility and clergy were often at lower rates than the poor during the time of the monarchy, the king and nobility went on living extravagantly during the time of famine rather than putting more of that money into feeding the starving people and the army may very well have tapered away into nothing by the 1940s due to the French Monarchy already being very deep in debt shorty before the revolution.

[Shilya]

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

That makes no sense whatsoever, because today our taxes are linked to income. No matter how many days you work, you can pay off your taxes as a fraction of them.

[Leritorius]

I will try to do so. It is also true that wars and climatic conditions did bring about famine. I am also aware Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, he and the royal court did live a life of extreme opulence while a large portion of the nation starved. He also negatively effected an effective economic turnaround by firing numerous popular finance advisors and ultimately gave the people only very limited power. He is an example of an ineffective and out of touch king.

Perhaps he wasn't the best King france ever had (some title no other king as Louis XIV could claim), but he still cared about his people, even the third state. Something no republican ruler can claim today.

[Imperii Magna]

I voted no. But really, I wish there was an in-between answer. I believe that the government should really just back out a bunch, and stop interfering in everything (except police and military) and ultimately become a corporation. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist by the way, if you couldn't tell.

[Immoren]

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

That makes no sense whatsoever, because today our taxes are linked to income. No matter how many days you work, you can pay off your taxes as a fraction of them.

[dryly]You mean you don't pay to government in dairy, cattle and fabric each year?[/dryly]

[New Socialist South Africa]

The poors taxes during the under the monarchy were less then the poors taxes of todays France.

Right. It has been calculated that, before 1789, a peasant had to work 28 days a year to pay his taxes to the Kingdom. Today, you have to work 286 days a year for the same effect.

And in 1789 you had no say in who governed you and might starve to death. Today you have a little more say in who governs you and you are significantly less likely to stave to death. Progress, however slow.

[Arcov]

I will try to do so. It is also true that wars and climatic conditions did bring about famine. I am also aware Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, he and the royal court did live a life of extreme opulence while a large portion of the nation starved. He also negatively effected an effective economic turnaround by firing numerous popular finance advisors and ultimately gave the people only very limited power. He is an example of an ineffective and out of touch king.

Perhaps he wasn't the best King france ever had (some title no other king as Louis XIV could claim), but he still cared about his people, even the third state. Something no republican ruler can claim today.

Absolute bullshit.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I will try to do so. It is also true that wars and climatic conditions did bring about famine. I am also aware Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, he and the royal court did live a life of extreme opulence while a large portion of the nation starved. He also negatively effected an effective economic turnaround by firing numerous popular finance advisors and ultimately gave the people only very limited power. He is an example of an ineffective and out of touch king.

Perhaps he wasn't the best King france ever had (some title no other king as Louis XIV could claim), but he still cared about his people, even the third state. Something no republican ruler can claim today.

That is fairly contentious. I would hazard that some do more than above the pretension that they do. Furthermore, their are numerous politicians, probably a minority, but still, who can be said to care about the people.

Furthermore, he may have cared for the people, but Louis the 16th certainly wasn't the most qualified or effective person for the leadership of the nation. Some monarchs were good leaders, but a great number were either well meaning but inept, lazy and uncaring or downright evil.

[Ungodly Darkness]

Democracy and monarchy intertwined is certainly effective. IE constitutional monarchy.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Democracy and monarchy intertwined is certainly effective. IE constitutional monarchy.

Not really. It includes all the original defects of democracy, just with the added bonus of a poster family acting as a sort of Kardashian clan on Welfare.

[Salandriagado]

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population?

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

7 seems very late, and 9 years seems very short.

[Distruzio]

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population?

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

Ridiculous. Doing that necessitates a "lowering the bar" approach to education to cater to the lowest common denominator thus the population does not, necessarily, become better educated but, rather, more indoctrinated.

Here, in America, we have an incredibly high rate of education but an equally high rate of functional illiteracy. Sure, folks graduate from coercive education but they're, generally speaking, morons. That isn't a politically intelligent population. That's a fucking stupid population. Really, any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be. That's all due to public education within our culture.

[Salandriagado]

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

Ridiculous. Doing that necessitates a "lowering the bar" approach to education to cater to the lowest common denominator thus the population does not, necessarily, become better educated but, rather, more indoctrinated.

Here, in America, we have an incredibly high rate of education but an equally high rate of functional illiteracy. Sure, folks graduate from coercive education but they're, generally speaking, morons. That isn't a politically intelligent population. That's a fucking stupid population. Really, any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be. That's all due to public education within our culture.

No, that's due to the US system in particular being terrible. Other systems elsewhere are vastly superior.

[Geilinor]

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

Ridiculous. Doing that necessitates a "lowering the bar" approach to education to cater to the lowest common denominator thus the population does not, necessarily, become better educated but, rather, more indoctrinated.

Here, in America, we have an incredibly high rate of education but an equally high rate of functional illiteracy. Sure, folks graduate from coercive education but they're, generally speaking, morons. That isn't a politically intelligent population. That's a fucking stupid population. Really, any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be. That's all due to public education within our culture.

Those countries have public education as well, the idea of public education is not at fault.