Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[The Portland Territory]

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

Monarchies have several drawbacks, and many cases are visible in which certain aristocrats and monarchs become tyrannical or go crazy, but en majoiritié, history shows that monarchies give their subjects much more freedoms than that of democratic republics

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

Monarchies have several drawbacks, and many cases are visible in which certain aristocrats and monarchs become tyrannical or go crazy, but en majoiritié, history shows that monarchies give their subjects much more freedoms than that of democratic republics

You're gonna need to source that.

[Hammer Britannia]

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

Monarchies have several drawbacks, and many cases are visible in which certain aristocrats and monarchs become tyrannical or go crazy, but en majoiritié, history shows that monarchies give their subjects much more freedoms than that of democratic republics

Which ones?

The only ones who actually defended freedom are the ones with a parliament/constitution, which even then it isn't that great because of all the succession wars.

Most absolute monarchs in history have been, well, absolute in their authority. As in, "Fuck your freedom, no liberal thoughts, no speaking out against the government, speak out against me and get arrested"

[The New California Republic]

monarchies give their subjects much more freedoms than that of democratic republics

If you can demonstrate that with evidence, then you have just undermined the foundation of modern democracy. But I doubt any such evidence will be forthcoming.

[Blanco-Campeon]

monarchies give their subjects much more freedoms than that of democratic republics

If you can demonstrate that with evidence, then you have just undermined the foundation of modern democracy. But I doubt any such evidence will be forthcoming.

What kinds of things would count as evidence, would you say?

[The New California Republic]

If you can demonstrate that with evidence, then you have just undermined the foundation of modern democracy. But I doubt any such evidence will be forthcoming.

What kinds of things would count as evidence, would you say?

I'm open to suggestions. Within reason.

[Blanco-Campeon]

What kinds of things would count as evidence, would you say?

I'm open to suggestions. Within reason.

sorry. I should have been clearer. What are the kinds of evidence one can cite in order to claim one society is more free than another, in a general sense?

[The Archregimancy]

The only countries with an Absolute Monarch that I can think off Brunei, Swaziland, and Saudi Arabia.

What do they have in common? They're all shitholes

Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the emirates of the UAE are also absolute monarchies. Kuwait has a parliament with some functional power, so we'll leave it off the list. I offer no opinion as to whether they are all 'shitholes' since I've lived in one of the list, and worked in two others.


Also, Saudi Arabia isn't an absolute monarchy; it's an absolute diarchy, with power balanced between the secular throne represented by the House of Saud, and the religious ulema represented by the House of the ash-Sheikh (the descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab). All three Saudi states - and the current kingdom is merely the most recent of the three - have rested on this mutually self-legitimising alliance between the two families and the two centres of power.

[The New California Republic]

I'm open to suggestions. Within reason.

sorry. I should have been clearer. What are the kinds of evidence one can cite in order to claim one society is more free than another, in a general sense?

Peer-reviewed research would be a good start.

[Blanco-Campeon]

sorry. I should have been clearer. What are the kinds of evidence one can cite in order to claim one society is more free than another, in a general sense?

Peer-reviewed research would be a good start.

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

[Dylar]

Peer-reviewed research would be a good start.

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

There's a site called Jstor.org that contains academic sources for pretty much anything.

[Hammer Britannia]

Peer-reviewed research would be a good start.

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

The amount of laws that restrict what people can do for one

[The New California Republic]

Peer-reviewed research would be a good start.

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

Not really my problem. I didn't make the claim that Monarchies had more freedoms than democratic republics. Ask the OP what evidence they can provide, if any.

[Blanco-Campeon]

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

The amount of laws that restrict what people can do for one

Is a society where it is unlawful to commit murder less 'free' than one where it is not unlawful to commit murder?

[Blanco-Campeon]

What would researchers look for when trying to determine if a society is 'free'?

Not really my problem. I didn't make the claim that Monarchies had more freedoms than democratic republics. Ask the OP what evidence they can provide, if any.

In order for this to be a constructive discussion, we need to find out what is meant by 'evidence' so the one making the claim can't hide behind false evidence, and those challenging the claim can't strike down true evidence. There needs to be agreement.

[Hammer Britannia]

The amount of laws that restrict what people can do for one

Is a society where it is unlawful to commit murder less 'free' than one where it is not unlawful to commit murder?

In theory, Yes

But that's anarchism, which is 100% total freedom, and most people don't want that.

[Blanco-Campeon]

Is a society where it is unlawful to commit murder less 'free' than one where it is not unlawful to commit murder?

In theory, Yes

But that's anarchism, which is 100% total freedom, and most people don't want that.

ok. Would you agree that it is better to live in a society where murder is unlawful?

[Hammer Britannia]

In theory, Yes

But that's anarchism, which is 100% total freedom, and most people don't want that.

ok. Would you agree that it is better to live in a society where murder is unlawful?

Yes

Nobody said total freedom is good, just a lot of it

[Blanco-Campeon]

ok. Would you agree that it is better to live in a society where murder is unlawful?

Yes

Nobody said total freedom is good, just a lot of it

How do you know when an amount of freedom is 'too much freedom'?

[The New California Republic]

Not really my problem. I didn't make the claim that Monarchies had more freedoms than democratic republics. Ask the OP what evidence they can provide, if any.

In order for this to be a constructive discussion, we need to find out what is meant by 'evidence' so the one making the claim can't hide behind false evidence, and those challenging the claim can't strike down true evidence. There needs to be agreement.

Splitting hairs. Most people can use common sense to determine what constitutes evidence, so that's what we will use here, common sense.

[Hammer Britannia]

Yes

Nobody said total freedom is good, just a lot of it

How do you know when an amount of freedom is 'too much freedom'?

When people are being violated (I.E Murdered, Raped, Robbed from, etc) and the authorities are doing nothing or if there are no Authorities.

Which most people can agree is a bad thing.

[Camelone]

What made the monarchist supporters here actually begin to support monarchy?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’m fine with a british or Japanese system, where the monarch is just there for ceremony

[The New California Republic]

I’m fine with a british or Japanese system, where the monarch is just there for ceremony

From what I have read so far on this thread, that isn't what most of the monarchy advocates here would want. I think that most of them want absolute monarchies. Feel free to correct me, anyone, if this statement is wrong...

[Camelone]

I'm not an absolutist. While I believe that the monarch should play a role within the political games, as well as the natural aristocracy, a strong constitution is necessary. The rule of law is crucial for the development of a successful civil society. So for a quick and dirty comparison I would support a Bonepartist or a Prussian type of monarchy, with the establishment of a national church while retaining freedom of religious practice.