NATION

PASSWORD

Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What kind of Monarchist are you?

Absolutist
48
14%
Theocratic/ Papal
12
4%
Semi-Constitutional
45
13%
Constitutional (Modern Britain)
55
16%
Constitutional (Pre-Orange Britain)
12
4%
Constitutional (Elective)
11
3%
Constitutional (Other)
13
4%
Not a Monarchist
139
41%
 
Total votes : 335

User avatar
Ardoki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14424
Founded: Sep 14, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ardoki » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:36 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Ardoki wrote:Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?
Greater Ardokian Empire | It is Ardoki's destiny to rule the whole world!
Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

Head of State: Grand Emperor Alistair Killian Moriarty
Head of Government: Grand Imperial Chancellor Kennedy Rowan Coleman
Legislature: Imperial Senate
Ruling Party: Imperial Progressive Party
Technology Level: MT (Primary) | PMT, FanT (Secondary)
Politics: Social Democrat
Religion: None
Personality Type: ENTP 3w4

User avatar
United Muscovite Nations
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16632
Founded: Feb 01, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby United Muscovite Nations » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:38 pm

Ardoki wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.
Formerly United Marxist Nations, Dec 02, 2011- Feb 01, 2017. +33,837 posts Eastern Orthodox Christian. Christian Anarchist and Monarchist. Supporter of Pan-Arabism.
Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism.
Pro and Anti: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=uni ... id=1166847

User avatar
Ardoki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14424
Founded: Sep 14, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ardoki » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:42 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Ardoki wrote:The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?
Greater Ardokian Empire | It is Ardoki's destiny to rule the whole world!
Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

Head of State: Grand Emperor Alistair Killian Moriarty
Head of Government: Grand Imperial Chancellor Kennedy Rowan Coleman
Legislature: Imperial Senate
Ruling Party: Imperial Progressive Party
Technology Level: MT (Primary) | PMT, FanT (Secondary)
Politics: Social Democrat
Religion: None
Personality Type: ENTP 3w4

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Senator
 
Posts: 4203
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:50 pm

Ardoki wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

Not exactly, Constitutions still inherently limit power and constitutions can be expanded, so a monarch who holds vast power is inherently threatened by the concept of a constitution itself.

I am very much against Absolutism myself, but against the UK style of Constituionalism, nor the German Empire levels, which is far too autocratic in my eyes.
I favor a strong balance between the two.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of ruling without popular mandate. Forcing the creation of a Monarchy on a populace that does not want it is tyranny. And blood-monarchies, while inherently appealing to me, are ultimately a failure and lead to corruption, tyranny, and incompetence, something I despise. I prefer adoptive monarchies, myself. The idea is to to adopt the most qualified heir who most closely follows your values, to provide a force of stability, and to ensure the ideology doesn't deviate. However, that successor, is treated as family, not just politically, but genuinely.

Why have the ideology not deviate?
Simple:

My version is meant to be a check against radical extremism on both sides, as well as partisanship, allowing society to progress in any direction, whilst ensuring stability, a competent active government when democracy is gridlocked, a rallying cry for when society is divided over the elected government, virtue, morality, and to protect liberty.

It's the check to the failures of democracy and monarchy, and is designed to allow stability, combat corruption, incompetence, gridlock/division, and tyranny, while also not being too powerful in itself.

I'm still in the early conception stages of it's design, but those are the guidelines, and I'll likely be making multiple versions. My current, favored version is based on the USA Government Structure, with both an Elected President and Monarch.


I should stress that anyone who takes my ideas and forces them upon a country betray the very values it's based on, and if somehow, my ideology becomes popular, but people somehow abuse unforeseen consequences to become tyrants or to try to force it through tyranny and dictatorship, etc., and not Democratic means, then it was partially my failure for not accounting for it, but also I denounce them and would excommunicate them as well as demand they step down.

Granted, I'm not implying my ideas will be successful, but if they are, I want to lay down some groundwork now. I shall also be putting a similar warning in the official text, if I ever get that far.
Preferred Tickets:
Amy Klobuchar/Steve Bullock 2020, Joe Biden/Sherrod Brown 2020, Bernie Sanders/Yang 2020, Beto/Inslee 2020, Harris/Ojeda 2020

Petrasylvania wrote:
Dahon wrote:
... is this kinky?

Not until a rolled up magazine is used.

Kowani wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:....
To be fair that's probably what most AOC, Gillum, and Bernie supporters think it is.

Which....

Guys..

Americans think they're Socialist but are not.

AMERICA IS A LIE!

... I don’t know how to respond to this.

This nation's Policies partially represent my views, partially are experimental, same thing with how my nation is in RP.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.

User avatar
Ardoki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14424
Founded: Sep 14, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ardoki » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:11 pm

Eternal Lotharia wrote:
Ardoki wrote:Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

Not exactly, Constitutions still inherently limit power and constitutions can be expanded, so a monarch who holds vast power is inherently threatened by the concept of a constitution itself.

I am very much against Absolutism myself, but against the UK style of Constituionalism, nor the German Empire levels, which is far too autocratic in my eyes.
I favor a strong balance between the two.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of ruling without popular mandate. Forcing the creation of a Monarchy on a populace that does not want it is tyranny. And blood-monarchies, while inherently appealing to me, are ultimately a failure and lead to corruption, tyranny, and incompetence, something I despise. I prefer adoptive monarchies, myself. The idea is to to adopt the most qualified heir who most closely follows your values, to provide a force of stability, and to ensure the ideology doesn't deviate. However, that successor, is treated as family, not just politically, but genuinely.

Why have the ideology not deviate?
Simple:

My version is meant to be a check against radical extremism on both sides, as well as partisanship, allowing society to progress in any direction, whilst ensuring stability, a competent active government when democracy is gridlocked, a rallying cry for when society is divided over the elected government, virtue, morality, and to protect liberty.

It's the check to the failures of democracy and monarchy, and is designed to allow stability, combat corruption, incompetence, gridlock/division, and tyranny, while also not being too powerful in itself.

I'm still in the early conception stages of it's design, but those are the guidelines, and I'll likely be making multiple versions. My current, favored version is based on the USA Government Structure, with both an Elected President and Monarch.


I should stress that anyone who takes my ideas and forces them upon a country betray the very values it's based on, and if somehow, my ideology becomes popular, but people somehow abuse unforeseen consequences to become tyrants or to try to force it through tyranny and dictatorship, etc., and not Democratic means, then it was partially my failure for not accounting for it, but also I denounce them and would excommunicate them as well as demand they step down.

Granted, I'm not implying my ideas will be successful, but if they are, I want to lay down some groundwork now. I shall also be putting a similar warning in the official text, if I ever get that far.

Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.
Greater Ardokian Empire | It is Ardoki's destiny to rule the whole world!
Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

Head of State: Grand Emperor Alistair Killian Moriarty
Head of Government: Grand Imperial Chancellor Kennedy Rowan Coleman
Legislature: Imperial Senate
Ruling Party: Imperial Progressive Party
Technology Level: MT (Primary) | PMT, FanT (Secondary)
Politics: Social Democrat
Religion: None
Personality Type: ENTP 3w4

User avatar
Second Empire of America
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 486
Founded: Feb 23, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Empire of America » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:12 pm

Stonok wrote:
NeuPolska wrote: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.


The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.
I have left NationStates. This account is inactive and will not respond to any form of communication.

User avatar
Kowani
Senator
 
Posts: 4264
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Kowani » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:23 am

Second Empire of America wrote:
Stonok wrote: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.


The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Yes, yes, the America is not a democracy argument, blah blah fucking blah. What’s next, are you going to say that the American left is not truly leftist as well?
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know. Open to TG’s.
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Catalan Separatist.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.

User avatar
Frievolk
Minister
 
Posts: 3368
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frievolk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:25 am

Kowani wrote:
Second Empire of America wrote:
The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Yes, yes, the America is not a democracy argument, blah blah fucking blah. What’s next, are you going to say that the American left is not truly leftist as well?
This has got to be ironic.
OOC
Libertarian Constitutionalist
Part-time Anarchist
Anti-Monotheist
Iranian Nationalist
Templates
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.

User avatar
Erdogan in cool sunglasses
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 366
Founded: Apr 13, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Erdogan in cool sunglasses » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:11 am

Salus Maior wrote:
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.
The point is that what is good for the people is usually not what they want. Monarch is able to make decisions which are good in the long term and create safe, rich and stable society which is satisfactory for the people (probably Saudi Arabia can fit to that description). In opposition to these democratic politicians have to focus on short-term work to win another election which often is bad for the people (Greece is the prominent example of that thinking).
Erdoğan is life, Erdoğan is love. He carries an Olive Branch to neighboring countries.

User avatar
Bienenhalde
Minister
 
Posts: 2514
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Bienenhalde » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:18 am

Nekokuni wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.


The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.


It might have been used that way...but that would not have been the original intention of early Confucians. A leader does not gain the Mandate of Heaven simply by seizing power. They must rule virtuously and adhere to the traditions and ethics of Confucianism.
Bienenhalde (mostly) represents my real political views.
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=75.6&d=68.6&g=38.8&s=45.2
OOC:
[*]Age: 24 [*]Pennsylvania Dutch [*]ELCA Lutheran [*]Male [*]Bisexual - leaning towards gay [*]Independent [*]Sinophile-Japanophile [*]Monarchist [*]Has Asperger's

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Senator
 
Posts: 4203
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:58 am

Ardoki wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Not exactly, Constitutions still inherently limit power and constitutions can be expanded, so a monarch who holds vast power is inherently threatened by the concept of a constitution itself.

I am very much against Absolutism myself, but against the UK style of Constituionalism, nor the German Empire levels, which is far too autocratic in my eyes.
I favor a strong balance between the two.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of ruling without popular mandate. Forcing the creation of a Monarchy on a populace that does not want it is tyranny. And blood-monarchies, while inherently appealing to me, are ultimately a failure and lead to corruption, tyranny, and incompetence, something I despise. I prefer adoptive monarchies, myself. The idea is to to adopt the most qualified heir who most closely follows your values, to provide a force of stability, and to ensure the ideology doesn't deviate. However, that successor, is treated as family, not just politically, but genuinely.

Why have the ideology not deviate?
Simple:

My version is meant to be a check against radical extremism on both sides, as well as partisanship, allowing society to progress in any direction, whilst ensuring stability, a competent active government when democracy is gridlocked, a rallying cry for when society is divided over the elected government, virtue, morality, and to protect liberty.

It's the check to the failures of democracy and monarchy, and is designed to allow stability, combat corruption, incompetence, gridlock/division, and tyranny, while also not being too powerful in itself.

I'm still in the early conception stages of it's design, but those are the guidelines, and I'll likely be making multiple versions. My current, favored version is based on the USA Government Structure, with both an Elected President and Monarch.


I should stress that anyone who takes my ideas and forces them upon a country betray the very values it's based on, and if somehow, my ideology becomes popular, but people somehow abuse unforeseen consequences to become tyrants or to try to force it through tyranny and dictatorship, etc., and not Democratic means, then it was partially my failure for not accounting for it, but also I denounce them and would excommunicate them as well as demand they step down.

Granted, I'm not implying my ideas will be successful, but if they are, I want to lay down some groundwork now. I shall also be putting a similar warning in the official text, if I ever get that far.

Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.

Ah but you see, the very idea of a adoptive heir is to enforce meritocracy.

The following is a theoretical idea that may help the system but I see some big issues with it, so quite willing to scrap it:
To achieve this system, the monarch would need to treat everyone like family, and be recognized as everyone's father or brother. People should be taught to treat like family but to not simply be subservient. To respect their decisions, but think independently. That way, the monarch is respected, and people have an attachment to the monarch(Thus making these adoptions easier) but are willing to question them.


As I said, there are some obvious issues with the above idea, so that's not a system I really like, alternate ways of ensuring that the heir gets along with the adoptive father as well as continues to hold onto the ideals of the nation-as they must both be talented and hold onto those ideals-while allowing society to progress in any direction, would be welcome.
Preferred Tickets:
Amy Klobuchar/Steve Bullock 2020, Joe Biden/Sherrod Brown 2020, Bernie Sanders/Yang 2020, Beto/Inslee 2020, Harris/Ojeda 2020

Petrasylvania wrote:
Dahon wrote:
... is this kinky?

Not until a rolled up magazine is used.

Kowani wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:....
To be fair that's probably what most AOC, Gillum, and Bernie supporters think it is.

Which....

Guys..

Americans think they're Socialist but are not.

AMERICA IS A LIE!

... I don’t know how to respond to this.

This nation's Policies partially represent my views, partially are experimental, same thing with how my nation is in RP.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Senator
 
Posts: 4203
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:01 pm

Nekokuni wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.


The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

Erm....
It actually precedes Confucius.

So I very much disagree with that, and the guy who replied with it being built on the idea of ruling virtuously is correct.
I myself am interested a similar mandate, but less divine, more populist, yet removed from elections, but also bound to democracy-so they can't abuse their power, nor be removed for having beliefs that one side disagrees with, etc.
Preferred Tickets:
Amy Klobuchar/Steve Bullock 2020, Joe Biden/Sherrod Brown 2020, Bernie Sanders/Yang 2020, Beto/Inslee 2020, Harris/Ojeda 2020

Petrasylvania wrote:
Dahon wrote:
... is this kinky?

Not until a rolled up magazine is used.

Kowani wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:....
To be fair that's probably what most AOC, Gillum, and Bernie supporters think it is.

Which....

Guys..

Americans think they're Socialist but are not.

AMERICA IS A LIE!

... I don’t know how to respond to this.

This nation's Policies partially represent my views, partially are experimental, same thing with how my nation is in RP.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.

User avatar
Nekokuni
Envoy
 
Posts: 258
Founded: Aug 17, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Nekokuni » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:14 pm

Eternal Lotharia wrote:
Nekokuni wrote:
The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

Erm....
It actually precedes Confucius.

So I very much disagree with that, and the guy who replied with it being built on the idea of ruling virtuously is correct.
I myself am interested a similar mandate, but less divine, more populist, yet removed from elections, but also bound to democracy-so they can't abuse their power, nor be removed for having beliefs that one side disagrees with, etc.


Oops, my mistake. I've always heard it used in conjunction with Confucianism, and a lot of writers I read ascribed the concept to Mencius, so I figured that it had its roots in Confucianism (not necessarily Confucius). Though I still dispute that it was built on anything other than the desire to legitimize treason against the sovereign, while using eloquent and clever language.

The best solution, to me, would be to strengthen the pluralistic institutions that share power with the monarchy, since that would be the best means to put a check on autocratic power.
IC: National Syndicalist Catgirl Thearchy

Udajin of Heian Japan
Lesbian Catgirl, Kokugakusha, Wannabe Poet
Slaanesh did nothing wrong

User avatar
Ardoki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14424
Founded: Sep 14, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ardoki » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:08 pm

Eternal Lotharia wrote:
Ardoki wrote:Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.

Ah but you see, the very idea of a adoptive heir is to enforce meritocracy.

The following is a theoretical idea that may help the system but I see some big issues with it, so quite willing to scrap it:
To achieve this system, the monarch would need to treat everyone like family, and be recognized as everyone's father or brother. People should be taught to treat like family but to not simply be subservient. To respect their decisions, but think independently. That way, the monarch is respected, and people have an attachment to the monarch(Thus making these adoptions easier) but are willing to question them.


As I said, there are some obvious issues with the above idea, so that's not a system I really like, alternate ways of ensuring that the heir gets along with the adoptive father as well as continues to hold onto the ideals of the nation-as they must both be talented and hold onto those ideals-while allowing society to progress in any direction, would be welcome.

That's what I meant sorry. I think your idea is quite meritocratic, which I actually kind of don't think is too bad in principle.
Greater Ardokian Empire | It is Ardoki's destiny to rule the whole world!
Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

Head of State: Grand Emperor Alistair Killian Moriarty
Head of Government: Grand Imperial Chancellor Kennedy Rowan Coleman
Legislature: Imperial Senate
Ruling Party: Imperial Progressive Party
Technology Level: MT (Primary) | PMT, FanT (Secondary)
Politics: Social Democrat
Religion: None
Personality Type: ENTP 3w4

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Senator
 
Posts: 4203
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:52 pm

Nekokuni wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Erm....
It actually precedes Confucius.

So I very much disagree with that, and the guy who replied with it being built on the idea of ruling virtuously is correct.
I myself am interested a similar mandate, but less divine, more populist, yet removed from elections, but also bound to democracy-so they can't abuse their power, nor be removed for having beliefs that one side disagrees with, etc.


Oops, my mistake. I've always heard it used in conjunction with Confucianism, and a lot of writers I read ascribed the concept to Mencius, so I figured that it had its roots in Confucianism (not necessarily Confucius). Though I still dispute that it was built on anything other than the desire to legitimize treason against the sovereign, while using eloquent and clever language.

The best solution, to me, would be to strengthen the pluralistic institutions that share power with the monarchy, since that would be the best means to put a check on autocratic power.

No worries, and I have similar beliefs. :)
Ardoki wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Ah but you see, the very idea of a adoptive heir is to enforce meritocracy.

The following is a theoretical idea that may help the system but I see some big issues with it, so quite willing to scrap it:
To achieve this system, the monarch would need to treat everyone like family, and be recognized as everyone's father or brother. People should be taught to treat like family but to not simply be subservient. To respect their decisions, but think independently. That way, the monarch is respected, and people have an attachment to the monarch(Thus making these adoptions easier) but are willing to question them.


As I said, there are some obvious issues with the above idea, so that's not a system I really like, alternate ways of ensuring that the heir gets along with the adoptive father as well as continues to hold onto the ideals of the nation-as they must both be talented and hold onto those ideals-while allowing society to progress in any direction, would be welcome.

That's what I meant sorry. I think your idea is quite meritocratic, which I actually kind of don't think is too bad in principle.

Indeed, now I just have to detail it, refine it, and trim the fat, to make it work.
Preferred Tickets:
Amy Klobuchar/Steve Bullock 2020, Joe Biden/Sherrod Brown 2020, Bernie Sanders/Yang 2020, Beto/Inslee 2020, Harris/Ojeda 2020

Petrasylvania wrote:
Dahon wrote:
... is this kinky?

Not until a rolled up magazine is used.

Kowani wrote:
Eternal Lotharia wrote:....
To be fair that's probably what most AOC, Gillum, and Bernie supporters think it is.

Which....

Guys..

Americans think they're Socialist but are not.

AMERICA IS A LIE!

... I don’t know how to respond to this.

This nation's Policies partially represent my views, partially are experimental, same thing with how my nation is in RP.
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.

User avatar
Blanco-Campeon
Envoy
 
Posts: 246
Founded: Feb 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Blanco-Campeon » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:55 am

tfw no President-for-Life like Hamilton wanted
Roman Catholic. Monarchist. Learning Latin.

The devil appeared to a monk disguised as an angel of light, and said to him, “I am the angel Gabriel, and I have been sent to you.” But the monk said, “Are you sure you weren’t sent to someone else? I am not worthy to have an angel sent to me.” At that the devil vanished.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 22915
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:10 am

Ardoki wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?


I think that this discussion is perhaps making the common modern mistake of conflating a ceremonial monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

The term 'constitutional monarchy' is, in modern political discussion, usually held to mean the types of ceremonial monarchy with a powerless figurehead common to most of the surviving modern European monarchies (some microstates and the Vatican apart).

However, this isn't entirely accurate. The semi-executive monarchies that were common in Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, where the monarch's power may have been constrained - but wasn't eliminated - were also constitutional monarchies. At its broadest, the term 'constitutional monarchy' is even functionally meaningless, since it can encompass both the ceremonial monarchy of the United Kingdom (a country that has no written constitution) and the absolute monarchy of Qatar (which does).

So a distinction needs to be made between the technical/historical and common meanings of 'constitutional monarchy'. The common meaning is largely restricted to the modern ceremonial form of symbolic figurehead monarchy; the technical/historical meaning applies to any monarchy whose power is defined by a constitution, which encompasses a far broader range of possibilities.

Attempts to conflate the two meanings as synonymous often leads to confusion - though the thread poll, to its credit, recognises the distinction.
Last edited by The Archregimancy on Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bakery Hill
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: Jul 03, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Bakery Hill » Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:13 am

Monarchism unites grandparents with investment proprties and their NEET grandchildren. It's a positive force for intergenerational cohesion.
Founder of the Committee for Proletarian Morality - Winner of Best Communist Award 2018 - Godfather of NSG Syndicalism

User avatar
Frievolk
Minister
 
Posts: 3368
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frievolk » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:31 am

Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?
OOC
Libertarian Constitutionalist
Part-time Anarchist
Anti-Monotheist
Iranian Nationalist
Templates
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.

User avatar
Second Empire of America
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 486
Founded: Feb 23, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Empire of America » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:48 pm

Frievolk wrote:Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?


I'd personally call it a "Ceremonial Monarchy". I like constitutional monarchies, but I dislike the name, because apart from your example, there are absolute monarchies that do have constitutions.
I have left NationStates. This account is inactive and will not respond to any form of communication.

User avatar
Frievolk
Minister
 
Posts: 3368
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frievolk » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:31 pm

Second Empire of America wrote:
Frievolk wrote:Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?


I'd personally call it a "Ceremonial Monarchy". I like constitutional monarchies, but I dislike the name, because apart from your example, there are absolute monarchies that do have constitutions.

And yet "Ceremonial Monarchies" don't fit the term either. For example, Prussian Constitutionalism is decidedly constitutional, but it doesn't demote the crown into a mere ceremonial office. Same with most non-Western Constitutional Monarchies rn (i.e. Malaysia)
OOC
Libertarian Constitutionalist
Part-time Anarchist
Anti-Monotheist
Iranian Nationalist
Templates
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.

User avatar
Seraven
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jun 10, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Seraven » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:36 am

Is it possible for French monarchy to be restored?
Copper can change as its quality went down.
Gold can't change, for its quality never went down.
The Alma Mater wrote:
Seraven wrote:I know right! Whites enslaved the natives, they killed them, they converted them forcibly, they acted like a better human beings than the Muslims.

An excellent example of why allowing unrestricted immigration of people with a very different culture might not be the best idea ever :P

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11268
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:42 am

Seraven wrote:Is it possible for French monarchy to be restored?

Yes, but not terribly likely.
Non-ultramontane integrist Catholic, counterrevolutionary, hispanophile, tradesman, outdoorsman, Texian.
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
Thank you St. Jude!

User avatar
Nakena
Diplomat
 
Posts: 547
Founded: May 06, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Nakena » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:47 am

Ardoki wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?


Imperial Germany was a constitutional monarchy.

So are Morocco and Jordan.

User avatar
Frievolk
Minister
 
Posts: 3368
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frievolk » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:13 am

Seraven wrote:Is it possible for French monarchy to be restored?

It is possible. Just not very likely. Almost not likely at all, tbh. You'd get more results looking for a restoration in Germany, Austria, or Russia tbh.
OOC
Libertarian Constitutionalist
Part-time Anarchist
Anti-Monotheist
Iranian Nationalist
Templates
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Bahktar, Bienenhalde, Conserative Morality, El-Amin Caliphate, Exabot [Bot], First American Empire, Gravlen, Hardholm, Ifreann, Nanocyberia, Painisia, Qyrym, Salus Maior, Seangoli, Shofercia, Silver Commonwealth, The Grims, The Liberated Territories, The New California Republic, The Two Jerseys, The Xenopolis Confederation, Twilight Imperium, Uiiop, Vassenor, Yusseria

Advertisement

Remove ads