NationStates

Second Empire of America wrote:(India is a Democracy, whereas America is an Oligarchy.)

Wow edgy

NeuPolska wrote:

Second Empire of America wrote:(India is a Democracy, whereas America is an Oligarchy.)

Wow edgy

I wanted to say something about that but I wasn't sure what I could say in response to it. To me America is not an oligarchy because the popular vote of each state does go towards the election of the President, but at the same time it's not a direct election for the office, but rather elects a body of people (The Electoral College) to vote for the desired candidate.

The Founding Fathers despised "Democracy", believing it to be tyranny by majority, but to say that America is ruled wholly by a select few (Oligarchy) is not quite correct, at least no more correct than it is in any other country.

Happy Fête Nationale or as you Anglos call it """Bastille Day""" everyone. (^:

Aellex wrote:Happy Fête Nationale or as you Anglos call it """Bastille Day""" everyone. (^:

Bastille Day is heresy and the French Revolution was a mistake.

Aellex wrote:Happy Fête Nationale or as you Anglos call it """Bastille Day""" everyone. (^:

Yes, without it Emperor Napoleon wouldn't have brought France to be the hegemon of Europe as its monarch :^)

Bienenhalde wrote:

Aellex wrote:Happy Fête Nationale or as you Anglos call it """Bastille Day""" everyone. (^:

Bastille Day is heresy and the French Revolution was a mistake.

You’re going to have to explain that, mon ami.
Also, heresy is supposed to be used for religious things so...Divine Right of Kings?

Salus Maior wrote:Yes, without it Emperor Napoleon wouldn't have brought France to be the hegemon of Europe as its monarch :^)

A short-lived and futile one who left us broken for the next century and a half. If anything, we were closer to true hegemony under Louis XIV.

Aellex wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Yes, without it Emperor Napoleon wouldn't have brought France to be the hegemon of Europe as its monarch :^)

A short-lived and futile one who left us broken for the next century and a half. If anything, we were closer to true hegemony under Louis XIV.

You're probably the first French Republican I've met who doesn't worship the ground Napoleon walked on.

Frievolk wrote:You're probably the first French Republican I've met who doesn't worship the ground Napoleon walked on.

You mustn't have met a lot of us because Napoléon isn't much liked in France, to be honest. If anything, he's ironically more appreciated abroad.

Aellex wrote:

Frievolk wrote:You're probably the first French Republican I've met who doesn't worship the ground Napoleon walked on.

You mustn't have met a lot of us because Napoléon isn't much liked in France, to be honest. If anything, he's ironically more appreciated abroad.

I don't mean "A Republican that is from France", I meant a person who prefers the French style of Republicanism (I should've been more specific)

Frievolk wrote:I don't mean "A Republican that is from France", I meant a person who prefers the French style of Republicanism (I should've been more specific)

Yes, I understood that. I have little in common with the eponymous American Party after all.
But yeah, Napoléon is actually quite disliked here by a lot of people. He's respected, true, but he did as much bad as he did good and he truly fucked us deeply just for his little dreams of glory and that's something that doesn't earn him much favour.

Stonok wrote:What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, the people would elect a king who, if served the people well, would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

I’m mixed about this. I thought about combining republics and monarchies with a president-for-life as the head of state with mostly ceremonial powers, but the position is elected, but I’ve started to develop a more favorable view of our current system. It’s by no means perfect, but things could be a lot worse, and I’m against fiddling with things, especially governments as it could just make things worse than they already are.

Ironically, our current system was loosely based on monarchy. Some of the Fathers wanted a strong monarchical-like figure, or at least modify the monarchical system, so that could be one of the reasons why we view the presidency as a big deal and as an exalted position. You could say the POTUS is an elected monarch with a term limit.

Aellex wrote:

Frievolk wrote:I don't mean "A Republican that is from France", I meant a person who prefers the French style of Republicanism (I should've been more specific)

Yes, I understood that. I have little in common with the eponymous American Party after all.
But yeah, Napoléon is actually quite disliked here by a lot of people. He's respected, true, but he did as much bad as he did good and he truly fucked us deeply just for his little dreams of glory and that's something that doesn't earn him much favour.

Which Napoléon isn't well liked? The first or the third?

Uxupox wrote:

Aellex wrote:Yes, I understood that. I have little in common with the eponymous American Party after all.
But yeah, Napoléon is actually quite disliked here by a lot of people. He's respected, true, but he did as much bad as he did good and he truly fucked us deeply just for his little dreams of glory and that's something that doesn't earn him much favour.

Which Napoléon isn't well liked? The first or the third?

I'm assuming both, tbh.

Frievolk wrote:I'm assuming both, tbh.

Indeed. Tho the third was of a whole other character than the first and a much better person (if poorer strategist).

Aellex wrote:

Frievolk wrote:I'm assuming both, tbh.

Indeed. Tho the third was of a whole other character than the first and a much better person (if poorer strategist).

Yeah. but he was directly responsible for both the Paris Commune and the formation of the German Empire. (I mean, those were both good things in my opinion, but I can see why a French Republican wouldn't like either ).

Frievolk wrote:[Yeah. but he was directly responsible for both the Paris Commune and the formation of the German Empire. (I mean, those were both good things in my opinion, but I can see why a French Republican wouldn't like either ).

Hence the poorer strategist. Still, I would nonetheless say he's one of my favourite monarch anyway and he was a genuinely interesting character. His end was shameful yet in the same time quite fitting with his life.

Nordengrund wrote:

Stonok wrote:What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, the people would elect a king who, if served the people well, would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

I’m mixed about this. I thought about combining republics and monarchies with a president-for-life as the head of state with mostly ceremonial powers, but the position is elected, but I’ve started to develop a more favorable view of our current system. It’s by no means perfect, but things could be a lot worse, and I’m against fiddling with things, especially governments as it could just make things worse than they already are.

Ironically, our current system was loosely based on monarchy. Some of the Fathers wanted a strong monarchical-like figure, or at least modify the monarchical system, so that could be one of the reasons why we view the presidency as a big deal and as an exalted position. You could say the POTUS is an elected monarch with a term limit.

Oh I'm not advocating for the US to become a monarchy in the modern day, it's in no place for such a gamble. The only thing I'd support at this moment would be the relegation of authority to the individual states and their governors so we no longer have to suffer for the idiocy of troublesome ones within our "union".

If the US became stabler though, I'd consider advocating Hamilton's system. It would've been interesting if it were implemented from the start.

Alright, a question that I'd appreciate if my fellow monarchists could answer. What decides legitimacy of the crown in your opinion? Like, is it popularity, "divine right", or something more basic?

When someone is able to rule as a king that means God supports him (because without this support he would lost his power). So definitely a monarch has a God given right to rule but it isn't a thing which makes a monarch for me.

To establish a dynasty monarch should be someone exceptional in the whole society, a true leader who knows what his people want and how to get it. Being a monarch is more alike serving the nation than tyranny (honestly this should apply to democratic politics too). When someone can't serve the people he never should be a monarch.

But his descendants have easier task to do. It's enough that they are born in the ruling family because of their ancestors braveness. But of course that applies only to the ideal world. When the descendants can't rule in the good way they should be dethroned.

Oh look, it's the second French Empire.

Erdogan in cool sunglasses wrote:When someone is able to rule as a king that means God supports him (because without this support he would lost his power). So definitely a monarch has a God given right to rule but it isn't a thing which makes a monarch for me.

To establish a dynasty monarch should be someone exceptional in the whole society, a true leader who knows what his people want and how to get it. Being a monarch is more alike serving the nation than tyranny (honestly this should apply to democratic politics too). When someone can't serve the people he never should be a monarch.

But his descendants have easier task to do. It's enough that they are born in the ruling family because of their ancestors braveness. But of course that applies only to the ideal world. When the descendants can't rule in the good way they should be dethroned.

It would be lovely if God actually removed said monarch then instead of leaving the nation to have to have a bloody revolution/civil war first.

Well, paranoid people often tend to die by heart attack because of much stress. Does it qualify as God intervention?

Erdogan in cool sunglasses wrote:Well, paranoid people often tend to die by heart attack because of much stress. Does it qualify as God intervention?

Only if you can demonstrate a distinction between not divinely enforced heart attacks, and good luck with that.

Erdogan in cool sunglasses wrote:When someone is able to rule as a king that means God supports him (because without this support he would lost his power). So definitely a monarch has a God given right to rule but it isn't a thing which makes a monarch for me.

To establish a dynasty monarch should be someone exceptional in the whole society, a true leader who knows what his people want and how to get it. Being a monarch is more alike serving the nation than tyranny (honestly this should apply to democratic politics too). When someone can't serve the people he never should be a monarch.

But his descendants have easier task to do. It's enough that they are born in the ruling family because of their ancestors braveness. But of course that applies only to the ideal world. When the descendants can't rule in the good way they should be dethroned.

Then what's the point?

Part of the idea behind monarchism is that 'the people' can make the wrong decisions for the nation and the monarch can override it. That being said, of course corruption has to be avoided in any government.