NationStates

Firaxin wrote:

Engleberg wrote:
Monarchism must not be allowed to go down that path, for we humans must never forget our past traditions that made us who we are today. Through the process of republicanism we have forgotten who we are in favour of allowing random joes to make decisions.

>Implying monarchs aren't random joes who happen to have royal blood

Dictators are more qualified to rule nowadays.

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

Firaxin wrote:

Engleberg wrote:
Monarchism must not be allowed to go down that path, for we humans must never forget our past traditions that made us who we are today. Through the process of republicanism we have forgotten who we are in favour of allowing random joes to make decisions.

>Implying monarchs aren't random joes who happen to have royal blood

Dictators are more qualified to rule nowadays.

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Bienenhalde wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

But should we really assume that equality and freedom are even necessarily good?

Bienenhalde wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:I find it interesting how throughout modern history, revolutions in the name of "equality" and "freedom" have only led to less equality and less freedom.

But should we really assume that equality and freedom are even necessarily good?

The Portland Territory wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Monarchism is a dying ideology. Most of the remaining monarchies are small countries. The number of absolute monarchies left in the world is tiny. To survive, ideologies need to evolve and change, but Monarchism seems loath to do that. Give it another 100 years, Monarchism will be thrown on to the garbage heap of history, like Feudalism et al.

Ah yes, ideologies always need to change to "keep with the tide"

Blanco-Campeon wrote:

Firaxin wrote:>Implying monarchs aren't random joes who happen to have royal blood

Dictators are more qualified to rule nowadays.

>implying monarchs can't be raised in the virtues in order to be a just ruler

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:I tend to disagree. People had much freedom in the mentioned monarchies. Reasons for revolution Russia was due to a famine, Russian losses in WWI, a few aristocrats exploiting many peasants, and quite bluntly, communist-socialist propaganda

As for France, Louis XVI was a bad ruler in general, at least regarding his own debts and getting into a lot of wars. However I suspect that if it weren't for Enlightenment ideals, they would've just instated a new monarch and dynasty instead as some did in the past

An exceedingly common problem with your system it seems, and people most certainly did not have "much freedoms" in the mentioned monarchies. Whatever your gripes might be with representative democracy it is still inherently more free than an absolute monarchy.

The Portland Territory wrote:How was the technological advancement in Russia "purposefully slowed"? There simply were too few people who wanted to live beyond their own homestead

It probably helps that they legally couldn't legally live anywhere else for most of the Empires existence.

Firaxin wrote:

Blanco-Campeon wrote:>implying monarchs can't be raised in the virtues in order to be a just ruler

>Implying monarchs would actually be raised to adhere to virtue, and wouldn't be brats

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
But should we really assume that equality and freedom are even necessarily good?

Yes, not being arrested just for speaking out against the leader is a good thing

Also >Socialist >Questions whether equality is good or not

Engleberg wrote:

Firaxin wrote:>Implying monarchs aren't random joes who happen to have royal blood

Dictators are more qualified to rule nowadays.

Not at all. A monarch has the right to rule for they are of the ruling house of the nation. They are taught from a young age to be the leader of the nation, giving them the knowledge needed for the task.

The Portland Territory wrote:Specifically, what examples can you give of monarchies being authoritarian over it's subject?

Bienenhalde wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Yes, not being arrested just for speaking out against the leader is a good thing

Also >Socialist >Questions whether equality is good or not

My idea of socialism is about state control and regulation of the economy, not ensuring complete equality of outcome. I do realize that my version of socialism is somewhat unorthodox.

Firaxin wrote:

Engleberg wrote:
Not at all. A monarch has the right to rule for they are of the ruling house of the nation. They are taught from a young age to be the leader of the nation, giving them the knowledge needed for the task.

Only the best native person has the right to rule. If they happen to be of royal descent, that is fine, but I refuse to allow unqualified teenagers rule just because they are the only child of the predecessor. Knowledge does not always equal experience, ability, or skill.

Engleberg wrote:

Firaxin wrote:Only the best native person has the right to rule. If they happen to be of royal descent, that is fine, but I refuse to allow unqualified teenagers rule just because they are the only child of the predecessor. Knowledge does not always equal experience, ability, or skill.

And I'd prefer not having some random person elected by a majority that might be against myself or similar people. An election does not always equal experience, ability, or skill.

Firaxin wrote:

Engleberg wrote:
And I'd prefer not having some random person elected by a majority that might be against myself or similar people. An election does not always equal experience, ability, or skill.

Who said anything about an election? I know elections don't do the job well enough and are vulnerable to exploitation.

Hammer Britannia wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Specifically, what examples can you give of monarchies being authoritarian over it's subject?

Caligula, Ivan the Terrible (Which you, idiotically, claimed was a good guy and not a mass murderer like a bloody tankie but for Ivan), King Leopold II, King George III in America, basically any colonial power ever

The Portland Territory wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:Caligula, Ivan the Terrible (Which you, idiotically, claimed was a good guy and not a mass murderer like a bloody tankie but for Ivan), King Leopold II, King George III in America, basically any colonial power ever

> King George III in America

kek, he literally did nothing wrong concerning the Americas. The French and Indian War, the newly imposed taxes, the laws allowing soldiers to enter colonial homes, all of that begun and was implemented by the British Parliament. George III had very little powers, courtesy of the War of English Succession

Hammer Britannia wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:> King George III in America

kek, he literally did nothing wrong concerning the Americas. The French and Indian War, the newly imposed taxes, the laws allowing soldiers to enter colonial homes, all of that begun and was implemented by the British Parliament. George III had very little powers, courtesy of the War of English Succession

You still haven't answered any of the other ones

Like how King Leopold II personally took over the Congo (Absolutism) and killed at least 10 million, and just Caligula in general really

Hammer Britannia wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:> King George III in America

kek, he literally did nothing wrong concerning the Americas. The French and Indian War, the newly imposed taxes, the laws allowing soldiers to enter colonial homes, all of that begun and was implemented by the British Parliament. George III had very little powers, courtesy of the War of English Succession

You still haven't answered any of the other ones

Like how King Leopold II personally took over the Congo (Absolutism) and killed at least 10 million, and just Caligula in general really

Engleberg wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:You still haven't answered any of the other ones

Like how King Leopold II personally took over the Congo (Absolutism) and killed at least 10 million, and just Caligula in general really

Non-monarchies have done the same thing, so this is a point of "nearly every government has done it."

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Engleberg wrote:
Non-monarchies have done the same thing, so this is a point of "nearly every government has done it."

That's kinda my argument.

Monarchies are not a "Defender of rights" or some stupid bullshit, they are equally as bad (if not worse) than most other political systems