Page 5 of 66

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 am
by Genivaria
The New California Republic wrote:
Irou wrote:Anarcho Monarchism?

Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Communist Monarchy?
Central planning under the king. :lol:

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:41 am
by The New California Republic
Genivaria wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Communist Monarchy?
Central planning under the king. :lol:

Equally perplexing.

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:38 am
by Reikoku
Genivaria wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Communist Monarchy?
Central planning under the king. :lol:


Prince Higashikuni was an admirer of the Soviet Union and its economy.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:32 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
Bienenhalde wrote:
Reikoku wrote:
Eugh, I hate being grouped with anti-democratic and Dark Enlightenment crowds. Besides disagreeing about democracy, they tend to support a new monarchy that resembles a D&D fantasy rather than the actual historical ones, such as favoring dissolution of nation states and creating CEO Kings of city-states.


I think skepticism about democracy is perfectly reasonable, but it seems like many of the Dark Enlightenment types are too secular and pro-capitalist. Firstly, I think that proper political authority should be based on divine right, not the will of the people or the majority. Furthermore, I think that along with democracy, capitalism is one of the main problems in the modern world and that it would be better to return to a distributist or a guild-based system to reign in the destructive forces of modern capitalism. Furthermore, making a CEO king would mean giving more power to the bourgeoisie and its materialistic value system, instead of actually restoring the aristocracy and their values of Christianity, noblesse oblige, and such.

Counterpoint: Democracy, capitalism and secularism are all great, the divine right you want kinga to rule by does not exist, the idea that people should be able to choose whichever religion they want if any is sound and moral and a guild/Feudalist system is completely unattainable in the 21st century and immoral.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 9:25 am
by Pilarcraft
Unpopular opinion (well, for this thread). Constitutional Monarchy (either with zero executive power for the monarch or some executive power for the monarch, but not as much as the democratic legislation) is the only type of monarchy that belongs to any time after 1789.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:03 am
by Salus Maior
Reikoku wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Communist Monarchy?
Central planning under the king. :lol:


Prince Higashikuni was an admirer of the Soviet Union and its economy.


Who?

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:04 am
by Salus Maior
Pilarcraft wrote:Unpopular opinion (well, for this thread). Constitutional Monarchy (either with zero executive power for the monarch or some executive power for the monarch, but not as much as the democratic legislation) is the only type of monarchy that belongs to any time after 1789.


What does time have to do with anything?

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:05 am
by Salus Maior
Reikoku wrote:
Aillyria wrote:What is it about monarchy that would make someone want them back? Monarchies are an incredibly outdated government system.


Not at all, monarchies are still running strong in many parts of the world. I don't “want them back,” considering the Japanese monarchy is still around.


*E M P O W E R T H E E M P E R O R*

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:06 am
by Pilarcraft
Salus Maior wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:Unpopular opinion (well, for this thread). Constitutional Monarchy (either with zero executive power for the monarch or some executive power for the monarch, but not as much as the democratic legislation) is the only type of monarchy that belongs to any time after 1789.


What does time have to do with anything?
It doesn't. this is the monarchist thread, and I submitted my opinion to it.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:06 am
by Salus Maior
Pilarcraft wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
What does time have to do with anything?
It doesn't. this is the monarchist thread, and I submitted my opinion to it.


Then why mark the date 1789?

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:08 am
by Aillyria
Pilarcraft wrote:Unpopular opinion (well, for this thread). Constitutional Monarchy (either with zero executive power for the monarch or some executive power for the monarch, but not as much as the democratic legislation) is the only type of monarchy that belongs to any time after 1789.

Quite, I agree. The only monarcy I'd support, though begrudgingly, would be a constitutional monarch with similar power to a modern president. A monarch with no power is worthless.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:18 am
by Pilarcraft
Salus Maior wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:It doesn't. this is the monarchist thread, and I submitted my opinion to it.


Then why mark the date 1789?
Because, honestly, that's the last year Absolutism even made any sense (the French Revolution, obviously).

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:19 am
by Pilarcraft
Aillyria wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:Unpopular opinion (well, for this thread). Constitutional Monarchy (either with zero executive power for the monarch or some executive power for the monarch, but not as much as the democratic legislation) is the only type of monarchy that belongs to any time after 1789.

Quite, I agree. The only monarcy I'd support, though begrudgingly, would be a constitutional monarch with similar power to a modern president. A monarch with no power is worthless.

Yeah, a figurehead monarch is... not something I'm certain I like. I mean, I can see why it exists (essentially, the reverted version of how the "head of government" exists but has zero actual powers in some dictatorial countries) but I'm not sure I like the idea of "here, have this money, this title, and this cool ass mansion, just sit there and look pretty".

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:22 am
by Salus Maior
Pilarcraft wrote:
Aillyria wrote:Quite, I agree. The only monarcy I'd support, though begrudgingly, would be a constitutional monarch with similar power to a modern president. A monarch with no power is worthless.

Yeah, a figurehead monarch is... not something I'm certain I like. I mean, I can see why it exists (essentially, the reverted version of how the "head of government" exists but has zero actual powers in some dictatorial countries) but I'm not sure I like the idea of "here, have this money, this title, and this cool ass mansion, just sit there and look pretty".


Most of the Royals do a lot of service for their country.

In fact, I think a good number of them are required to do military service in Britain.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:30 am
by Salus Maior
Pilarcraft wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Then why mark the date 1789?
Because, honestly, that's the last year Absolutism even made any sense (the French Revolution, obviously).


Then why did Russia and China continue being autocracies long after that?

The *insert-date-here* argument is not an argument at all.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:32 am
by Pilarcraft
Salus Maior wrote:
Pilarcraft wrote:Because, honestly, that's the last year Absolutism even made any sense (the French Revolution, obviously).


Then why did Russia and China continue being autocracies long after that?

The *insert-date-here* argument is not an argument at all.
I didn't say "that was the last date anyone had absolutism", I said "That's the last date anyone should have had absolutism", aka Russians were wrong to have absolutism -now mind, the Russian monarchy did get its just deserts later, but that's irrelevant. Also, if you notice my original post, this is an opinion, not an argument.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:57 am
by Salus Maior
Pilarcraft wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Then why did Russia and China continue being autocracies long after that?

The *insert-date-here* argument is not an argument at all.
I didn't say "that was the last date anyone had absolutism", I said "That's the last date anyone should have had absolutism", aka Russians were wrong to have absolutism -now mind, the Russian monarchy did get its just deserts later, but that's irrelevant. Also, if you notice my original post, this is an opinion, not an argument.


France doesn't exactly establish the governing moral compass of the world. Whether or not the French Revolution happened is irrelevant to whether it was moral that other nations were absolute monarchs (not even for themselves apparently, if Emperor Napoleon is any kind of indicator). Governing system in general is something I'd say is outside the question of morality.

And to call what happened to the Romanovs "just desserts" shows how little you actually know about Tsarist Russia or the ruling figures and families in particular.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:09 am
by British National Liberalist
Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Governance in my opinion because of it's incorruptibility and denial of absolute power to opportunistic and manipulative demagogues.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:10 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
British National Liberalist wrote:Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Governance in my opinion because of it's incorruptibility and denial of absolute power to opportunistic and manipulative demagogues.

Gimme a demagogue over an inherited tyrant any day.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:18 am
by Salus Maior
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
British National Liberalist wrote:Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Governance in my opinion because of it's incorruptibility and denial of absolute power to opportunistic and manipulative demagogues.

Gimme a demagogue over an inherited tyrant any day.


Not sure Germany would agree with you.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:37 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
Salus Maior wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Gimme a demagogue over an inherited tyrant any day.


Not sure Germany would agree with you.

If Hitler inhereited Germany, rather than campaigned for Germany, it would have been SO much worse.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:45 am
by Salus Maior
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Not sure Germany would agree with you.

If Hitler inhereited Germany, rather than campaigned for Germany, it would have been SO much worse.


Hitler would not have ever inherited Germany, he was no where near a legitimate heir to the German throne.

Hitler rise to power is entirely on republicanism's and democracy's shoulders, not monarchy.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:51 am
by The Xenopolis Confederation
Salus Maior wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:If Hitler inhereited Germany, rather than campaigned for Germany, it would have been SO much worse.


Hitler would not have ever inherited Germany, he was no where near a legitimate heir to the German throne.

Hitler rise to power is entirely on republicanism's and democracy's shoulders, not monarchy.

At least democracy has some mechanisms to stop tyrants. Monarchy has random chance.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:57 am
by Pilarcraft
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
British National Liberalist wrote:Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Governance in my opinion because of it's incorruptibility and denial of absolute power to opportunistic and manipulative demagogues.

Gimme a demagogue over an inherited tyrant any day.

*slowly raises hand* how about we get neither?

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 12:03 pm
by Salus Maior
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Hitler would not have ever inherited Germany, he was no where near a legitimate heir to the German throne.

Hitler rise to power is entirely on republicanism's and democracy's shoulders, not monarchy.

At least democracy has some mechanisms to stop tyrants. Monarchy has random chance.


Monarchy can, and has had in the past, mechanisms to de-throne particularly bad monarchs.

Perhaps the most recent and relevant to the English speaking world is the pressured abdication of Edward VIII. Another good example is the dethroning of Kaiser Ferdinand of Austria in favor of the much better Kaiser Franz Joseph.