NATION

PASSWORD

Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should Monarchs Reign or Govern?

Should Reign
29
27%
Should Govern
14
13%
Should not be given power
56
52%
Neutral
9
8%
 
Total votes : 108

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12692
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:00 am

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.


Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:01 am

Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics
Last edited by Alternamerica on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12692
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:06 am

Alternamerica wrote:Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics


Republics aren't exactly new either.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Exalted Inquellian State
Minister
 
Posts: 2820
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Exalted Inquellian State » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:08 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.


Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.

Are you a monarcho socialist? Or does your political compass still put you in the overton window?
My Speculative Evolution RP-https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=494906

User avatar
Alternamerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 778
Founded: Apr 11, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Alternamerica » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:09 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:Should they exist, it's only for ceremonial/cultural reasons but should have as little say in governance as possible. Monarchies are remnants of a bygone era. With the advent of modern education and mass communication, a more networked, educated society is better at running things on a local level than what a Monarch can ever dream of

My statement also applies to authoritarian and oligopolistic Republics


Republics aren't exactly new either.


Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies
What if America, but with Social Democracy & Eisenhower worship? Medicare For All, North American Highspeed Rail, and $1 Trillion military budget because we're the best country. CIA love Teddy Roosevelt and the environment enough to torture Oil executives. Our conservatives shoot Klansmen for sport. We waterboard UN delegates until they sign the GND
30% IRL views, 70% joke

Anthem | Basically USA | Factbook | Trump Tweets | GOP when there's liter | American Katyusha/Erika (WW2)
BREAKING NEWS: Proud Boys are robbing vaccines from rich neighborhoods to give to low income communities often neglected during vaccine rollout

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11651
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:09 am

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Monarchs, upon taking the throne, should immediately abolish the monarchy and abdicate.

No Kings, No Emperors.

How boring, atleast dig up a skeleton and proclaim it god emperor. Atleast then you get all the benefits of monarchy and none of the downsides.
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason. I honestly don't know why it placed me there.
Race: Vampire
Political Side: none anymore. Do you think I want to associate with anyone in politics? No I think on my own terms now (not happy? Fine I'll have some stuff for you to judge.
Electoral College Reforms: Standardized voting across the nation, Ranked Choice Voting, and Removal of Gerrymandering.
Student Loan/Free College: Copy Australias homework of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12692
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:10 am

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.


Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies


How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Exalted Inquellian State
Minister
 
Posts: 2820
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Exalted Inquellian State » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:11 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies


How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.

Something something they elect people who adapt to the modern times something something(ignores fact republics have a hard time getting anything done).
My Speculative Evolution RP-https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=494906

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 15938
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:13 am

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.


Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

History does not exactly support that statement.
Whisky-loving Anglican monarchist and one time moderator.
"It is spiritless to think that you cannot attain to that which you have seen and heard the masters attain. The masters are men. You are also a man. If you think that you will be inferior in doing something, you will be on that road very soon."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11651
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:14 am

Alternamerica wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Republics aren't exactly new either.


Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

The only downside to dictatorship systems monarchist or not, is that if you give people an education, they'll realize your rule is not absolute. This realization causes tension between the monarch and people, so even if your a good leader who knows whats best for his citizens, actively educating the populace will convince folks that your rule is not in fact absolute. And probably oust you for a republic.

Is a republic more adaptable? No, but it aligns its interests with the people. A politician is someone who argues for a role, arguing that their policies are for the peoples best interest. A monarch needs to make no argument, for his rule is law, so long as he isn't overthrown.
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason. I honestly don't know why it placed me there.
Race: Vampire
Political Side: none anymore. Do you think I want to associate with anyone in politics? No I think on my own terms now (not happy? Fine I'll have some stuff for you to judge.
Electoral College Reforms: Standardized voting across the nation, Ranked Choice Voting, and Removal of Gerrymandering.
Student Loan/Free College: Copy Australias homework of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12692
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:16 am

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote:
Instead career politicians who only care about their party and whichever companies/unions are paying them.

Are you a monarcho socialist? Or does your political compass still put you in the overton window?


I'm not against that system though I wouldn't describe myself as such. I just dislike how some people are happy to paint monarchies as an anachronism with no value, yet their own system has its own disadvantages such as accepting national awards from someone who represents a party rather than the country, and going with the example of America it's still having issues with its election and hyping up civil war albiet not to a widespread degree; meanwhile Britain gets elections done within a few weeks and has the Queen to step in if there were a constitutional crisis.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
The Hellas Planitia Territories
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 58
Founded: Nov 06, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hellas Planitia Territories » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:17 am

I believe that monarchs should not, and should never have existed! Power should never be concentrated in such extreme amounts for such long periods of time. All monarchs should abdicate, or be overthrown, and democratic republics established in their wake.

User avatar
Nakena
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14810
Founded: May 06, 2017
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Nakena » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:17 am

It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 58905
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:17 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies


How so? During WW2 the monarchy stayed in Britain rather than fleeing to Canada.


Our (Dutch) monarchy did both :lol:

The reigning queen was in Britain, while the crown princess was in Canada.
1. Forumer mod, now a rocker mocker. Thank you Ringo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Size matters. Bigger is forbidden and won't give the mods pleasure.

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12692
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:18 am

Holy Tedalonia wrote:
Alternamerica wrote:
Never said they were. Republicanism is more adaptable to changing environments than Monarchies

The only downside to dictatorship systems monarchist or not, is that if you give people an education, they'll realize your rule is not absolute. This realization causes tension between the monarch and people, so even if your a good leader who knows whats best for his citizens, actively educating the populace will convince folks that your rule is not in fact absolute. And probably oust you for a republic.

Is a republic more adaptable? No, but it aligns its interests with the people. A politician is someone who argues for a role, arguing that their policies are for the peoples best interest. A monarch needs to make no argument, for his rule is law, so long as he isn't overthrown.


A monarch does have the advantage of meeting more world leaders and knowing about statesmanship in general, whereas Mr SeemedAGoodIdeaAtTheTime has a few years of being in a hedge fund. The UK Queen has met more US presidents than pretty much anyone else in the world, possibly beaten only by senior white house staff and veteran journalists.
Last edited by SD_Film Artists on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11651
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:20 am

Nakena wrote:It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

I don't think many would be able to stomach what would happen to the reject monarch of china in the modern day. :p
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason. I honestly don't know why it placed me there.
Race: Vampire
Political Side: none anymore. Do you think I want to associate with anyone in politics? No I think on my own terms now (not happy? Fine I'll have some stuff for you to judge.
Electoral College Reforms: Standardized voting across the nation, Ranked Choice Voting, and Removal of Gerrymandering.
Student Loan/Free College: Copy Australias homework of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
Phaenix
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 463
Founded: Jun 19, 2020
Father Knows Best State

Postby Phaenix » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:21 am

A monarch is usually put in place to shorten decisions in government by holding absolute power, so the monarch should govern, not merely direct their subordinates and stay out of government.
Roma Aeterna!

PRO: Autocracy, secularism, socialism, meritocracy, freedom of speech
ANTI: Electoral College, Trump, Democrats, Republicans, Nazism, imperialism, libertarianism, communism, CCP

User avatar
The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile
Senator
 
Posts: 4668
Founded: Jul 12, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:30 am

Imagine starting this thread without setting forth definitions for reign and govern.

That said, I think it can be guessed what OP meant. A reigning monarch holds a mostly ceremonial office, and is in essence a figurehead, while a governing monarch holds absolute or at least tangible power. (A better prompt for this discussion would be, "Absolute or Limited Monarchy?".)

I am actually a proponent of autocracy; but monarchy is one of my least favorite forms of it. This is solely because of hereditary succession. There is no guarantee that the son of a great ruler will be half as great as his father. History is littered with examples. It's almost as if you're rolling up a new Dungeons and Dragons character every time the monarch dies; and, just as great men are few amongst the total population, so are truly great monarchs few amongst monarchies. For every Sun King you get five or six bumbling forgettables, maybe even a Charles II if you're unlucky...

Obviously the problem of incest can be mitigated in modern times, but still. There's no guarantee that the ruler will have the forethought to rear his heir to be a suitable successor to the throne, and placing the fate of one's nation on what is essentially the roll of a die is not an excellent system of governance.

Of course, this is, to a certain extent, a problem with all autocracies; but it can be alleviated by systems which allow the most capable to seize power, rather than passing it down from father to son.

Therefore, if there is to be a monarch at all, consign him to reigning, holding no real power over his nation. Governing should be left to autocrats who have earned power, rather than inherited it.
Capilean News (Updated 16 November)
Where is the horse gone? Where the warrior?
Where is the treasure-giver? Where are the seats at the feast?
Where are the revels in the hall?
Alas for the bright cup! Alas for the mailed warrior!
Alas for the splendour of the prince!
How that time has passed away, dark under the cover of night, as if it never were.

The Wanderer

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11651
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:35 am

The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Imagine starting this thread without setting forth definitions for reign and govern.

That said, I think it can be guessed what OP meant. A reigning monarch holds a mostly ceremonial office, and is in essence a figurehead, while a governing monarch holds absolute or at least tangible power. (A better prompt for this discussion would be, "Absolute or Limited Monarchy?".)

I am actually a proponent of autocracy; but monarchy is one of my least favorite forms of it. This is solely because of hereditary succession. There is no guarantee that the son of a great ruler will be half as great as his father. History is littered with examples. It's almost as if you're rolling up a new Dungeons and Dragons character every time the monarch dies; and, just as great men are few amongst the total population, so are truly great monarchs few amongst monarchies. For every Sun King you get five or six bumbling forgettables, maybe even a Charles II if you're unlucky...

Obviously the problem of incest can be mitigated in modern times, but still. There's no guarantee that the ruler will have the forethought to rear his heir to be a suitable successor to the throne, and placing the fate of one's nation on what is essentially the roll of a die is not an excellent system of governance.

Of course, this is, to a certain extent, a problem with all autocracies; but it can be alleviated by systems which allow the most capable to seize power, rather than passing it down from father to son.

Therefore, if there is to be a monarch at all, consign him to reigning, holding no real power over his nation. Governing should be left to autocrats who have earned power, rather than inherited it.

Tbf, even the roman empire had issues of succession, and they designated heirs instead of it simply being hereditary. They even got some real shit emperors in power at times.
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason. I honestly don't know why it placed me there.
Race: Vampire
Political Side: none anymore. Do you think I want to associate with anyone in politics? No I think on my own terms now (not happy? Fine I'll have some stuff for you to judge.
Electoral College Reforms: Standardized voting across the nation, Ranked Choice Voting, and Removal of Gerrymandering.
Student Loan/Free College: Copy Australias homework of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
Esheaun Stroakuss
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: May 23, 2015
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Esheaun Stroakuss » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:37 am

Neither. They should be abolished.
For: Socialism, Democracy, LGBT+, BLM, Freedom of Speech, Marxist Theory, Atheism, Freedom of/from Religion, Universal Healthcare
Against: Religious Fundamentalism, Nationalism, Fascism/Nazism, Authoritarianism, TERFs, Tankies, Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Capitalism

Esheaun Stroakuss is leaderless.

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 15938
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:40 am

Nakena wrote:It's kinda telling that the concept of monarchy here is exclusively viewed in an modern european context.

Monarchy is an extraordinarily broad term, so it's difficult to make any kind of generic argument for or against it.
Whisky-loving Anglican monarchist and one time moderator.
"It is spiritless to think that you cannot attain to that which you have seen and heard the masters attain. The masters are men. You are also a man. If you think that you will be inferior in doing something, you will be on that road very soon."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo

User avatar
Debate Proxy 1
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 361
Founded: Jun 04, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Debate Proxy 1 » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:41 am

The Hellas Planitia Territories wrote:I believe that monarchs should not, and should never have existed! Power should never be concentrated in such extreme amounts for such long periods of time. All monarchs should abdicate, or be overthrown, and democratic republics established in their wake.

Off with their heads.

The same can be said of every aristocracy.

Alliance with the aristocracies and monarchies of Europe, for instance, is downright treason against the principles the Founders stood for.
Last edited by Debate Proxy 1 on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fair inequality, such as Madison described in the Federalist #10 with regard to inborn differences of intellect and ability, that the people consent to, or else a complete equality built by the same right of popular consent, is the only just way to run a society. My money's on the two factions separating geographically and physically from one another, but it is the only way to prove whether the right or the left delivers better.

The Belgian Congo practiced slavery in 1911. British India used Untouchable slaves until 1948. The Northern States abolished slavery right after the Revolution, and totally abolished it without compensation. Even Marx and Lenin said America was the best of the capitalist countries for workers, and regarded the Founding Fathers as progressive.

User avatar
Greater Cosmicium
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 198
Founded: Mar 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Greater Cosmicium » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:42 am

Deus Ignis wrote:This thread is about how monarchs should act while in power. Now lets begin:
I believe that monarchs should reign, not govern, and point the nation into one general direction, while the lords and elected/appointed commoners work out the smaller details.

So lets debate NS!


Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages; the world has moved beyond the need for them. An absolute monarch can't properly make decisions for an entire nation, even a small one, since they can't possibly know the desired policies of each section of the population (also they never properly make decisions, because, y'know, personal enrichment and gaining support of your nobility, damn the commoners), while a constitutional monarch has many of the same issues (the monarchs of many constitutional monarchies still decide whether a law passes or not after it's been passed in more "democratic" government chambers), except they're less powerful.

Only the common people truly know what policy they align with and what they want (or don't want) as leader and what government to have, not monarchs, "elected" "representatives" that never end up representing the people, or other ruling people of similar type.

TLDR: They should do neither. Down with the monarchy! Long live the worker's republic!

Sorry for the possibly incoherent ramble, I'm not used to writing such opinions.
✯✯✯ UNIVERSAL EMPIRE OF GREATER COSMICIUM ✯✯✯
Military Hub
Geography Hub
History Hub
Economy Hub

Doing a total rewrite of this nation to shake off its generic space empire image. I dread to know WHEN it will be done.
NS stats were dropped into Diet Coke to finally serve a useful purpose for Greater Cosmicium.
14/05/1072918 | Cosmi-Web News: [MED] You may already be dead without knowing it, here's how to tell. | Cosmician Press Agency: Cosmician Censorship Bureau moves to ban book "The Remnants of Cosmicium" for "prophetic content predicting Cosmicium's downfall"

User avatar
The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile
Senator
 
Posts: 4668
Founded: Jul 12, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:45 am

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Tbf, even the roman empire had issues of succession, and they designated heirs instead of it simply being hereditary. They even got some real shit emperors in power at times.

Sure, but I wasn't necessarily arguing for designated succession. This would inexorably lead to autocrats bequeathing power to those they favored, rather than those most capable of ruling.

Even electing successors via some sort of shadow council or oligarchy is a dubious succession system. Power struggles at the death of an autocrat are nearly inevitable, so autocracies might as well embrace them, so that the strongest successor may claim power.
Capilean News (Updated 16 November)
Where is the horse gone? Where the warrior?
Where is the treasure-giver? Where are the seats at the feast?
Where are the revels in the hall?
Alas for the bright cup! Alas for the mailed warrior!
Alas for the splendour of the prince!
How that time has passed away, dark under the cover of night, as if it never were.

The Wanderer

User avatar
Debate Proxy 1
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 361
Founded: Jun 04, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Debate Proxy 1 » Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:47 am

Greater Cosmicium wrote:
Deus Ignis wrote:This thread is about how monarchs should act while in power. Now lets begin:
I believe that monarchs should reign, not govern, and point the nation into one general direction, while the lords and elected/appointed commoners work out the smaller details.

So lets debate NS!


Monarchies are an outdated concept that belong in the medieval ages; the world has moved beyond the need for them. An absolute monarch can't properly make decisions for an entire nation, even a small one, since they can't possibly know the desired policies of each section of the population (also they never properly make decisions, because, y'know, personal enrichment and gaining support of your nobility, damn the commoners), while a constitutional monarch has many of the same issues (the monarchs of many constitutional monarchies still decide whether a law passes or not after it's been passed in more "democratic" government chambers), except they're less powerful.

Only the common people truly know what policy they align with and what they want (or don't want) as leader and what government to have, not monarchs, "elected" "representatives" that never end up representing the people, or other ruling people of similar type.

TLDR: They should do neither. Down with the monarchy! Long live the worker's republic!

Sorry for the possibly incoherent ramble, I'm not used to writing such opinions.

One could say there never, ever was a need for monarchy and aristocracy. Paine's Rights of Man makes a lot of excellent points in this respect, and you might consider reading Adams on the nature of the alliance between the civil power and the ecclesiastical power under feudalism.
A fair inequality, such as Madison described in the Federalist #10 with regard to inborn differences of intellect and ability, that the people consent to, or else a complete equality built by the same right of popular consent, is the only just way to run a society. My money's on the two factions separating geographically and physically from one another, but it is the only way to prove whether the right or the left delivers better.

The Belgian Congo practiced slavery in 1911. British India used Untouchable slaves until 1948. The Northern States abolished slavery right after the Revolution, and totally abolished it without compensation. Even Marx and Lenin said America was the best of the capitalist countries for workers, and regarded the Founding Fathers as progressive.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Duvniask, Fractalnavel, Iron Land, Juristonia, Kubra, NS Miami, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads