Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 am
Equally perplexing.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
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.
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.
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 Monarchies are an incredibly outdated government system.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.
It doesn't. this is the monarchist thread, and I submitted my opinion to it.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?
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.
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.
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".
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.
Pilarcraft wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
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.