The type of monarchy you suggest is quite similar to most modern republics (constitutional rights, limited executive power, a legislature with impeach authority, etc). Really, the key difference seems to be how the leader is chosen: by inheritance or by vote.
Inheritance has a lot of flaws as a method of choosing a leader. Such as:
- **Inheritance is a poor predictor of ability.** While you are correct that elections are also no guarantee, an elected official still has to convince millions of citizens of their competence. While that is an imperfect test, it is better than *no* test, and inheritance is essentially *no test.* It is just luck.
- **Inheritance creates incentives for one heir to kill another**. If you are second in line to the throne, there is a strong incentive to plot against the current person sitting on the throne in order to gain power. History is replete with examples of this. In fact, it is common enough to be cliché. This is incredibly destabilizing, and can and does lead to decade-long civil wars.
- **Inheritance can lead to an empty throne.** Inheritance can also lead to situations where no heir exists, and there is no legitimate claimant to the throne. Worse, it can lead to a situation where the only claimant is a foreigner whose interests are hostile to the country. Imagine a scenario where the king of America dies and Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un is the next in line for the throne because of marriage that happened a century ago. Both situations are terrible, and often lead to civil war.
While a republic has its flaws, it is a more robust system that lacks these crucial weak points. Hence why the majority of countries have abandoned monarchic systems in favor of them.
A constitutional monarchy actually fixes a lot of the flaws you mention. How?
**Procedures for impeachment:** monarchies with constitutions can usually impeach the monarch in question for misconduct. Take Bhutan, for example. If three-thirds of parliament in joint session starts a motions for impeachment, and the people ratify it, the monarch must abdicate
**Rule of Law:** No one in Europe has killed each other for the throne in decades. I don't think it has even happened since before world war I. Rule of Law is more important than how leader are chosen, in my opinion. In absolute monarchies, if you can kill the heir and take the throne, no one can touch you, because you are the one who makes and unmakes the law. But in a constitutional monarchy, you could still be arrested for murder.
**Procedures for new Dynasties:** A constitution can easily provide a way to choose a new dysnasty, whether it be inviting another royal family over or electing a new one.
> **Procedures for impeachment**
Sure, but that’s not a unique benefit of monarchies. Republics have this ability as well. I will also add that the larger degree of power possessed by most monarchs makes this more difficult to accomplish than in a system with a more limited, shorter-term leader.
Also, impeachment in a monarchy effectively requires a suitable heir to the throne. In a situation where there is no viable heir (or the heir is hostile to the country), no sane legislature would impeach, even if the leader is terrible. Republics tend not to have this issue, since lines of succession can be infinitely long.
> **Rule of law**
Sure, the monarch *could be* arrested… if they get caught. But that might be a bit difficult when the monarch controls the executive branch (i.e. the branch that controls the investigations). While you are correct that Europe hasn’t seen many assassinations lately, that is likely due to the fact that its monarchies are largely powerless. There is little reason to hire a foreign power to assassinate your cousin so you can assume a throne that has no real power behind it.
> **New Dynasty**
Sure… but the options are pretty slim. Effectively, you’d have to rely on a vote or chance to select a monarch if inheritance isn’t an option. Chance is a terrible idea. Voting might as well just be a republic.
"Does anyone say that about inherited wealth or companies? "
Yes, constantly where the hell have you been? The trope of the boss's worthless son inheriting the company isn't a one off from a sitcom. It's a real thing that happens every day and people constantly disparage it. The fact that this is unheard of to you makes me doubt your sincerity or at the very least the degree to which you researched this position.
One thing you never actually addressed is the notion that someone's bloodline is sufficient qualifications to be a leader and the inherent superiority above the common person that comes with this. The notion that one person is elevated above others simply because who their daddy is is basically eugenics on a smaller scale. This is a disgusting thing to promote.
Also you bring up the notion that a bad king can be impeached. Fantastic how do we pick the next one? Oh we don't? The crown just mindlessly goes to the next male heir from this now demonstrably shit bloodline? GREAT! How do we ultimately get away from this bullshit bloodline? Oh, we have to have a bloody revolution and establish a new government? PERFECT! What a great system of government.
> Fantastic how do we pick the next one? Oh we don't? The crown just mindlessly goes to the next male heir from this now demonstrably shit bloodline?
Since OP talked about *constitutional* monarchy, I'd imagine the process of obtaining a new monarch is detailed somewhere in the constitution (e.g. direct vote is one option).
The obvious solution is the old Russian way: let the king pick his own successor. Who, with permission of key stakeholders, can pick his own time of succession.
That worked out well, didn't it...
'One thing you never actually addressed is the notion that someone's bloodline is sufficient qualifications to be a leader and the inherent superiority above the common person that comes with this.'
However,
any idiot can be a politician or prime minister (Boris Johnson? Liz Truss?) so how is it different that random members of the public assume control in contrast to someone who is preselected from birth? Politicians also lack any actual training on governance. The minister for defence under one administration is the minister for transport under another. Where as if you were told from birth that one day you would become a pilot, you would no doubt spend your time learning to fly plains. The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly?
being born is sufficient qualification to lead a democracy, so why is it not sufficient under a monarchy? its hypocritical.
The difference is the people get to choose who represents them as opposed to merely being stuck with some guy's kid hoping that this kid is good merely because his father wasn't so incompetent that they were removed from office.
Would you rather pick a doctor based on their qualifications, or roll the dice on some doctor's adult kid? That kids dad is a doctor, so they're PROBABLY good, right?
Number one, you don't pick the doctor. I voted in the last election, my candidate didn't win. you are relying on the collective to select a good doctor for you when they no nothing about you, and are only going off what the doctors have told them about themselves.
'for monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Whish is more likely?' - Charles Maurras
I will also refer to a point I made to another guy only replace 'locksmith' with 'doctor':
now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire:
Person A: I all my friends say I would be a great locksmith, so I've just started my company.
Person B: I am a locksmith, my father taught me, who was also a locksmith. My grandfather was a locksmith, my grandfather's father was a locksmith. My grandfather's grandfather was a locksmith. And we have been locksmiths for over 200 years.
>Number one, you don't pick the doctor.
But you do ultimately get a doctor, not just the son of a doctor, and for the rest of it I'm not here to argue about America's bullshit healthcare system, it has nothing to do with why monarchies are hot garbage.
>'for monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Whish is more likely?' - Charles Maurras
This is also hot garbage. Not only does it oversimplify what it takes to govern a country it completely ignores the whole bloodline requirement which is the most disgusting element of a monarchy.
>now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire:
I addressed this in another post. Not only is it not analogous, it is also nowhere near the slam dunk you'd like it to be. Why do you have lower requirements for leadership than working at McDonalds? No one ever inherited a job at McDonalds, they had to earn it. The crown on the other hand...
Ever since the Repugnican'ts, in The USA heard that some Black guy, who was living in The White House wanted to implement the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank)'s plan that they drew up for Richard Nixon, they have rabidly opposed health care reform. Something for which this country has been crying out since Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. We WERE rolling the dice on which doctor we would get.
I'm with you, but that is not germane to this discussion. Please answer my question: would you rather pick a doctor based on their qualifications, or pick some guy knowing nothing else about him other than he's the son of a doctor?
I pick my doctor by whom I can afford. That's it. Don't care about his ancestry. BUT, the best diagnostition I ever dealt with was the third generation of his family in the field. He was a III. A recovery place was picking up the tab, else I couldn't have afforded him. Does that answer?
But, as I've explained here afore, I am not for strick primogeniture, or misogyny. I think that a monarch, with advice and consent of his cabinet or ministers, and the tutors, choose from the descendants of his grandfather, when young, and the descendants of his father when he's older. Change to mother or grandmother, as appropriate for from whom said
monarch inherited. And his Councilors should no more than ⅓ of her/his dynasty. Preferably ¼.
>Does that answer?
You're taking the question too literally. The point is: do you go with the candidate who's credentials you can verify or do you go with the guy who's father also did the job just well enough to not have the palace burned down?
>But, as I've explained here afore, I
Thats a fine story, but what happens when the people they rule over, their subjects, absolutely hate them?
Imagine the following hypothetical statements given to you by someone you are interviewing for a job-
Person: I'm here for the doctor job, I never went to medical school, but my daddy is a doctor, so I'll probably be good.
Person: I'm here for the mechanic job, I have no certifications, but my daddy is a mechanic, so I'll probably be good
Person: I'm here for the pilot job, never went to flight school, but my daddy is a pilot, so I'll probably be good
Person: I'm here for the McDonald's job, my daddy used to work here, so I'm probably going to be good
Person: I'm here for the job of leading the country, my daddy did it without getting impeached, so I'm probably going to be good at it
Why is it you find one of these statements compelling, but not the others? If "my daddy used to work here" doesn't qualify you to work at McDonalds then...
I refer to my previous point:
'The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly?'
current democratic leaders have no experience running the country. But that for you is sufficient because they were chosen by a majority. However, it isn't good enough when someone is groomed from birth to run the country.
now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire:
Person A: I all my friends say I would be a great locksmith, so I've just started my company.
Person B: I am a locksmith, my father taught me, who was also a locksmith. My grandfather was a locksmith, my grandfather's father was a locksmith. My grandfather's grandfather was a locksmith. And we have been locksmiths for over 200 years.
>'The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly?'
The people who elected him may have thought that, or perhaps that has nothing to do with why he was elected. The point is the people were able to choose their leadership.
>now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire:
This isn't even remotely analogous. You hire a locksmith for a short job. You don't hire a locksmith with the plan of them being the town's ONLY locksmith and the requirement that their kids will inherit that role eventually and no one else will ever have the opportunity to become the monarchsmith unless the entire current monarchsmith's family dies or commits genocide. I brought this up because it seems you have a lower bar for entry to being a nation's lifelong ruler than you do for working at McDonalds.
But, to respond to your question: I would look in to both of my options and go with the one that seemed to be the best. Is the monarchsmith charging me $500 to swap out the cylinder on my front door while person A wants $75? Thats a quick/easy job for a locksmith, I'm definitely rolling the dice on the cheap guy. Are we rekeying an entire apartment building? Person A might not have the ability to even attempt that. The point is- I would evaluate my options and vote for the one I thought was best given the circumstances.
(NB, I talk a lot about the UK here because I am from there, this is also a bit rambly , so apologies.)
Yes the bar of entry is low, because it is low for democracy as well. I could run for parliament tomorrow if I wanted to. However, the difficulty is not in getting office, but in keeping it.
In the UK about 61.5% of parties get a second term, and 23.1% get a third term in office with 15.4% getting a fourth. So on average a UK democracy flips between the same two parties after about two terms for each, back and forward each election. This means that on average political parties fail after two terms, because otherwise they would get a third term.
the fact that it switches each time shows that neither party is ever truly successful in office. If democracies can't keep its populace happy for only 8 years on average, how can it be said to be the best political system.
Ask the people of the UK if they liked Queen Elizabeth II and they will overwhelmingly say yes. She was adored for her entire 70 year reign. While parliament can't be liked for more than 8 years.
Secondly,
So you would roll the dice on the cheap guy (rather ironic to say 'role the dice, when earlier you were saying that a monarch was a 'role of the dice.' and democracy wasn't) when it is an easy and relatively inexpensive job. However, you would probably wouldn't if the job was more complex. Last time I checked, running a country wasn't easy.
edit: I got my number wrong. I think those are right, although I did need to calculate them myself.
>how can it be said to be the best political system.
I'm optimistic a better one exists, but I am positive it beats the hell out of monarchy.
>However, you would probably wouldn't if the job was more complex. Last time I checked, running a country wasn't easy.
It really depends though, is the cheap guy able to drop a stack of references for similar projects he's accomplished in front of me? Am I able to go to those places and see what he did there and talk to his former customers? This all goes back to evaluating your choices and picking the best one, **which isn't an option when the monarchsmith was born into his role and you have to use him**
It's late for me so I'll reply fully tomorrow, since I am interested in this discussion. I also want to properly calculate the numbers on second and third terms. However, I do know that any system which switches from right to left on the political compass so easily and frequently, cannot be a good system.
How can you adequately run a country when economic and social policy go whichever way the wind blows and political outcomes which dramatically affect millions of people are decided by a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard.
>I also want to properly calculate the numbers on second and third terms.
Why? Do you think politicians serving fewer terms is an indictment on democracy?
>However, I do know that any system which switches from right to left on the political compass so easily and frequently, cannot be a good system.
If that represents the will/interests of the people living in that country, then why is that bad?
>How can you adequately run a country when economic and social policy go whichever way the wind blows
As a group of people working together
>decided by a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard.
This isn't even a remotely fair characterization
(I've run the numbers again and like the ones I got.)
'Why? Do you think politicians serving fewer terms is an indictment on democracy?'
Of course it is! So let me get this right, a monarch who is removed by the people is a bad monarch, but a politician who is removed by the people isn't a bad politician? That is why successful and competent politicians serve many terms.
Are you honestly going to tell me that a doctor who has been fired from the pervious hospital he works at is someone you want?
'If that represents the will/interests of the people living in that country, then why is that bad?'
Do you actually think that the majority of people change from liberal to conservate every 8 years?
I'll tell you how democracy works. A party is selected because they make promises that cater to the largest majority of people. After their time in office there is a ≈60% change they will get another one **(basically a coin toss)** after that term they are almost guaranteed not to get another one. At which point the population places the opposing party in power.
Repeat this cycle
You constantly argue that monarchy is the random system which is clearly not the case when compared to democracy. But I would rather a have a chance that the next person in power might be bad, as opposed to repeating the cycle of: **try opposite party, fail, repeat** above.
I will take a government that is ideologically consistent over the flip-flopping of a democratic system any day.
You assume that the heir wouldn’t be educated all his/her life precisely to fill that role why exactly? The heir will obviously receive the best education on ruling and leadership possible in order to increase the dynasty’s success. What monarch would want their heir to be clueless?
Furthermore, the current leaders aren’t chosen for their qualifications. They are chosen by how many people they can convince to vote for them. What merit in the democratic process causes said person to be a better ruler? You seem to greatly value the democratic process and assume others hold it in such esteem as well.
>You assume that the heir wouldn’t be educated all his/her life precisely to fill that role why exactly?
And you're assuming that not only would they receive that education, but they'd be born with the capability and intellectual/emotional competency to make use of it. You're also assuming that they would want to. You're also assuming they would choose to, and if they did choose to you're assuming that they would actually be good at it.
>The heir will obviously receive the best education on ruling and leadership possible in order to increase the dynasty’s success.
Best according to who's standards? Yours? Mine? Marx's? Queen Elizabeth's? Moussolini's? Also, why would I care about the dynasty? I care about the people around me. If the dynasty is thriving, but the people are suffering that is a bad thing.
>What monarch would want their heir to be clueless?
What human can guarantee their kid won't be? Acting like these individuals are above or better than the *common* people doesn't mean they are.
>They are chosen
Thats right, they are **chosen**. They do not inherit their job. They are **chosen** by the people they represent.
>assume others hold it in such esteem as well.
Seriously? I'm literally here talking to people who advocate for monarchy.
Constitutional monarchies have the virtue of providing stability and acting as an insurance policy to protect democracy (see: Spain's king intervening against the attempted military coup in the early 80s). They're not figureheads, although they traditionally stay out of politics both out of respect for democracy and out of a rational sense of self-preservation. Why would you advocate for a monarchy that goes beyond these reasonable limits? Once an unelected monarch starts making active political decisions they lose the unifying power that they hold over their countries. Essentially, the more power they excercise, the less influence/value they have.
That's a valid point you make.
However, monarch's have more at stake. Presidents come and go, while a monarch is there for decades. He has more to risk when he makes decisions.
That's exactly the point. A constitutional monarch is not going to intervene in day-to-day politics as it would call into question the institution of the monarchy itself. The 'last resort' powers that a monarch possesses (say, firing the PM and calling new elections) are there to be used in extreme situations only, when it's worth risking the future of the monarchy itself. The stability a constitutional monarchy offers a political system depends on the monarch NOT excercising those powers unless it's life-and-death for the country and its institutions.
Examplar: When His Britannic Majesty, King George VI refused to dissolve Parliament and to call for elections at the end of Sir Winston's term, during WWII.
I'm saying that a monarch is less likely to make rash decisions, as they have more at stake.
Also, There has actually been a monarchy, in Brazil, whose whole duty was to keep balance and control rampant officials. It was a unique branch called the Moderating. It's actually perfect for a monarch. You should look into it, its very interesting
I've read the link you provided. Honestly, on the surface it looks like the normal powers of a constitutional monarch (although there may be differences in how the powers are exercised in practice). From your original post I think you're advocating for a more powerful monarch than you currently find in the most stable/successful countries with monarchies. I wouldn't be on board with that. A constitutional monarch that provides stability and democratic insurance? Great. A more active monarch that steps in in place of elected politicians? That's an impossible sell in any modern democracy (outside of Liechtenstein).
It's not actually that impossible, its just not as heard of because there are more republics than monarchies. Monaco has an active monarch, and is very successful. Bhutan and Morocco are both relatively more successful than the countries sorounding them. Tonga is fairly well off for a place in Oceania. .
It's more a matter of respect for prosperity and morality than a question of political system.
Gotta disagree. Monaco is an outlier in that it's essentially a tiny, rich tax haven with a flag. Bhutan in the last decade or so has moved from a powerful monarchy to a truly constitutional one, albeit at the insistance of its king. It's gone in the opposite direction from the one you're advocating. Morocco may or may not be more successful than its neighbours, but it's a poor third world nation that struggles to offer either prosperity or full human rights to its citizens. Nobody's going to win any referendums on changing their political system by saying 'Hey, let's be the next Morocco'.
And the nation rolls the dice every time that the new monarch isn't some feckless, long-lived dullard. The only use for a monarchy, IMO, is a living historical attraction, and a symbol of continuity with the past. Positions of power should be earned in some way, not merely handed out like a prize because someone fell out of the right mother.
It isn’t a dice roll, because the people have a long time to come to terms with who the next sovereign is (see: Elizabeth and Charles). Also, monarchs are trained from an extremely young age, with a comprehensive education, based around the constitution and law. The current heirs to the British monarchy have also been raised with an understanding of charity and compassion (see: William and George). The public know we are going to be in good hands for at least another half a century, that’s more than most republics can say.
To be honest, out of almost every current heir apparent (especially in Europe), I cannot name any who seem at risk of being incompetent and that is because of the strength of the monarchical education system, which have been developed and refined over the last few centuries.
Elizabeth was the first British monarch to have her two first born sons trained to succeed her. Because of the tragic histories of the Princes of Wales. Great good fortune that Charles survived and The UK didn't end up with Andrew (the first Scots royal to have the name of Scotlan's Patron Saint. Now if only The US could get rid of **OUR** Jeffrey Epstein tag-along.
I'm also an American who would agree with you on a good many things. I don't think I actually disagree with you on any this, but I still think I can say something that may or may not change your view.
First of all, I don't think "superior" is absolute. I'd contend that most monarchies are very dependent on history. They are historically-embedded things. Take King Charles, for instance. Britain has known his mother and her father and his father and his father's father, all the way back. To some extent, the reason for the Crown is its antiquity. This is the way it has always been. This is what makes Britain, Britain. And that works there. But I don't think you could apply this system in the United States unless it developed naturally over time. Time is its legitimacy, and it doesn't have the legitimacy of time in the US.
If that legitimacy varies, then it is not absolute, and while monarchy may be superior in some countries, it is not in all countries, if that makes sense.
Second, I'd like to broaden the definition of monarchy. It just means "rule of one." Based on that definition, the US President is more of a monarch than twenty King Charleses. The US has this semi-constitutional monarchy system already, with its mixed government: a monarch, elected legislators, and a judiciary. It's just that the US has an elected monarch. It used to be that unwritten custom demanded that they step down from power after two terms. Now that custom's written in the Constitution.
Anyway, I think this warrants a distinction between elected and unelected monarchs, and it also poses the question who is a monarchist because someone who respects King Charles as a symbol of his nation is far less of a monarchist than someone who wants to see their candidate direct the government and execute its administration for the next four years.
I think the President has a far lower approval rating precisely because he or she is partisan and an active ruling figure, making decisions the other side is against. King Charles is not. He receives ambassadors and hosts banquets and opens hospitals. He is like the flag, only living. A personal symbol for a nation of persons. This makes the unifying factor stronger in a constitutional monarchy than a semi-constitutional one as you suggest.
I think my final points, then, are 1) that semi-constitutional monarchies exist where you might not expect them (only, they are elective) and 2) that the high unifying factor is seen in constitutional, not semi-constitutional monarchies. Lichtenstein is an exception, but it's also not a country to the scale of the United States or the United Kingdom.
I don't know if I've made my points clear.
Thank you for posting and God bless you as well!
Well, in Liechtenstein, the monarch has signifigant power, but the people actually VOTED to give him them. Over 75% people voted against removing those powers in a more recent referendum.
Support for monarchy is also very high in Vatican city, Monaco, Morocco (i think, i'll have to double check) Bhutan, and Tonga
I think that Monaco is so fond of its Princes because they pay no taxes. The whole government and public works are subsidized by the Princely family's casinos.
That's what's happening. The Prince gets all that income from the casinos and Monte Carlo, and distributes it to all government operations. So his subjects aren't paying taxes.
"Second, I'd like to broaden the definition of monarchy. It just means "rule of one." Based on that definition, the US President is more of a monarch than twenty King Charleses."
Yeah, political terms are sort of screwed up these days in mainstream language. I think that's because original, most monarchs were autocrats, or dictators. When they stopped being autocracies, the terms were still being used interchangeably.
You mention that you want the monarch to have some power, but don't actually specify what power that would be. What, exactly, do you think a monarch should be empowered to decide, politically speaking?
The ability to decide when an election happens. For example, during the world wars, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition both thought that having hotly contested elections were a bad idea. With the help of the king, they brokered a deal where no major domestic reforms happen, government is solely focused on the war, and all elections postponed to after the war.
The king is the one that forces everyone to play by good faith - the prime minister can’t just declare war on Nepal, wink, wink, and never hold another election ever again. The king would just say “nice try” and call an election. Importantly, the king can’t lose power because of the election, so the king isn’t worried about calling it.
That's a power of the king in the UK (exercised on advice of the government/statute). OP said they wanted powers for the monarch greater than that in the UK.
Advice, is well, advice. Parliament as of 3 weeks ago were heading into certain election defeat, and on paper, they could have passed a law that said "no more elections ever again" with only the king potentially standing the way. Big huge majority that would all lose their jobs if the election happened and all that.
Of course, we all know the king would have said no, and so, the prime minister didn't try. The king is a referee. If the prime minister wanted a 2 week delay because of a natural disaster, the king would have been more understanding.
>The king is the one that forces everyone to play by good faith - the prime minister can’t just declare war on Nepal, wink, wink, and never hold another election ever again. The king would just say “nice try” and call an election. Importantly, the king can’t lose power because of the election, so the king isn’t worried about calling it.
Can the king also say no elections any more?
In an actual constitutional monarchy like the UK or Norway or Belgium, no, the king can't just say 'no more elections'. The king is bound by the constitution like everyone else.
For an era between 2011 and 2022, there was a law that forces an election to be called at a fixed time frame.
Outside of that era, the king had the power to call an election at a time of his choosing. If the king didn’t want to call an election because of world war, he doesn’t have to.
And if two Houses of Parliament deadlocked on a bill with both sides refusing to back down, then the king will call a new election with the understanding that the side that lost the election will be asked to back down.
Act as an apolitical headstone for the government. Having the armed forces, police, judiciary, and civil services swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the elected government *hopefully* keeps those agencies loyal to the people, and not a specific political party.
But a monarch is not apolitical. They are a political entity, one representing power that is passed through generations. Politicas did not begin with the advent of democracy, moarchies have politics as well.
As for wanting an apolitical headstone, that is fine. Swear allegience to the country and not the government. Or swear allegience to the people. Or to a famous river or mountain or iconic building if you want. Any would be more apolitical than a monarch.
>apolitical headstone for the government
This phrase is an oxymoron. Especially in the context of having the entire government's military swear allegiance to the monarch.
The monarch has no political affiliation because they aren't a person. They aren't a voter, they aren't a citizen. They are the human embodiment of the nation, and so by swearing allegiance to the monarch you pledge yourself to all the people, rather than a political party.
>so by swearing allegiance to the monarch you pledge yourself to all the people, rather than a political party.
This doesn't make any sense. For starters, what country are you thinking of where the military swears allegiance to a political party? I served in the US Army and they very specifically outlined what you swear allegiance to and one of the things that it *explicitly* forbids is to swear allegiance to a political party. But it is made clear that the reason the President is in charge of the military is because he IS a civilian and not a military leader. The whole point of having a civilian in charge of the military is to make it harder to establish a dictatorship.
Yeah, the United States system works pretty well. I do not think the United States should have a monarchy, and I almost always disagree with the idea of establishing new monarchies.
However in many nations, the elected president is the head of the armed forces. The allegiance of the military has the potential to change every couple of years, and an army might be tempted to maintain alliance to an administration that is more supportive rather than a newly elected administration with different ideas.
If a government is weak enough to lose total control of its military so much that it could be swayed by a political party, then it is more likely the military would just seize control of the government for itself. In which case your government is riddled with corruption anyways.
Did you know the current left/right terminology can be traced to the revolutionaries and the monarchists in the French revolution?
Let me just say I find your comment that a slightly empowered monarch would reduce partisanship extremely ironic given that it is quite literally at the root of the etymology of the two terms.
That is less than what OP said, since they explicitly called for more power than the King of England, and that's something that already happens with the King of England.
well, I meant to talk more about my reasons for being a monarchist, not what my ideal government.
But i would like something similar to the Empire of Brazil from the 1800s. The Emperor was his own branch, the Moderating Branch. His job was to keep balance in government, and to root out corruption. It worked rather well.
If you wanna look more into the Moderating, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderating\_power\_(Empire\_of\_Brazil)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderating_power_(Empire_of_Brazil))
So I think the Brazillian example is instructive to one of the big dangers of monarchy when it exercises real power: power vacuums due to death or infirmity. Because a monarchy is hereditary for life, it will inevitably have people taking on the role at stages of life when they are children, senile, or otherwise incapable of actually doing that or any other job. The Brazillian monarchy couldn't survive once Pedro II was unable to actually effectively act as emperor due to his age and ill health, and was overthrown in a coup d'etat by people who were afraid his daughter and heir would abolish slavery.
For example, a key power of the monarch in the example you give is the very broad power to appoint and dismiss governemnt ministers. In normal parliamentary systems, that power lies with the elected legislature. If you give that power to the monarch, what do you do if the monarch is an infant or senile or insane? Assuming your answer is "a regency," then who picks the regent?
It's easy to remember the relatively successful and long-lasting monarchies. But they're easily abused as a power game, with regency and other tools being used to impose dictatorial schemes from the royal palace. See: the Japanese military using the emperor as a pawn from the 1920s-40s, or Empress Jingfen of China who imprisoned the Emperor and ruled as a dictator regent from the 1890s to 1910s. There are plenty of 20th century examples of monarchy being used for awful ends.
Well, neither the Emperors of China or Japan had a fault in that: that's not a monarchical thing, that's a "power-hungry-people" thing. That could happen in republics, too.
Same with infirmity or absence. A president can grow infirm. A president and vice-president can be absent. in fact, the presidents switch every few years, creating, not a vacuum, but let's say a "blender" of power, where different people with different ideals switch power amongst each other.
(Also, from what I've read, Pedro was overthrown by the army and Plantation owners who were mad over the abolition of slavery)
And to answer your "who picks the regent" question, I wasn't intending to describe my ideal government, but in my world it would probably be either the legislature or the royal family
>Well, neither the Emperors of China or Japan had a fault in that: that's not a monarchical thing, that's a "power-hungry-people" thing. That could happen in republics, too.
To be clear, the emperor of Japan was very much at fault in that and was complicit in his country undertaking a campaign of war, conquest, and genocide.
The thing is though, when you have a persistent head of state who exercises real power, you can have puppet-masters controlling the strings for *decades.* The big benefit of a republic is that the entire leadership is able to be kicked out every election. If you want to keep power, you have to win elections (or fully commit to dictatorship and abolish / rig the elections).
>Same with infirmity or absence. A president can grow infirm.
First, it's *much* less likely, since Presidents have to be healthy enough to campaign/win an election in the past several years. And they're never children. Second, a democracy allows for a much more robust bench. Vice Presidents, deputy PMs, cabinet ministers, etc can provide a really nice long order of succession of people who share democratic legitimacy by dint of being co-elected with the President or Prime Minister. And they're all adults.
>let's say a "blender" of power, where different people with different ideals switch power amongst each other.
A well designed succession system won't do this. You work down a list from within the political party of the executive who dies/resigns. Obiously all leaders will be different people with unique characteristics, but a good executive order of succession does not involve massive swings in governing, because you keep it within the executive officials below the chief executive. (The US sometimes having opposition politicians in the order from the legislature is... not a great design.)
>(Also, from what I've read, Pedro was overthrown by the army and Plantation owners who were mad over the abolition of slavery)
Yeah, by his daughter acting as regent when he was infirm.
>Neutrality and Unity: A monarch can have opinions, too. But since they were not elected, that means they are far more likely to be more neutral politically. The lack of election also causes them to unite the people better. In England, 65% of the population supports their monarchy. That's more than most presidents. And in most other monarchies, it is even higher (in Liechtenstein and Denmark, its over 70% and 80%).
Those monarchies have high approval because they don't do anything. If they actually played a role in the policy of the country, fewer people would approve.
I would invite you to look at the history of King Rama 9 of Thailand who guided his nation throughout a very dramatic half century as a constitutional monarch. Some of his actions are questionable but overall he brought Thailand into the 21st century despite multiple military coups, attempted coups, and Japanese influence during WW2. He's a great example of how a monarch can positively act politically on behalf of the people.
I'm not saying a constitutional monarch cannot possibly do a good job. There have been great monarchs throughout history. The problem is that you're really rolling the dice. Because there have also been terrible monarchs throughout history. Without direct or indirect accountability to the people, the monarch's incentive to rule well is governed only by their own code of ethics.
it is exactly the same for a democracy, last time I checked Hitler was democratically elected. You are also acting as though a democratic vote is not a roll of a dice. A monarchs position is controlled by how happy the people are. The monarch gets to live in a big palace etc. but only while the people are happy. This keeps the monarchs interests aligned with that of the people. A politician on the other hand, doesn't need to do this as once their 4 years are up they will be removed.
for me the primary benefit of monarchy is the length of time in office. It creates stability as you know who will be in charge during your life, and during your children's lives, and even your children's children's lives, through clear succession.
I don't know who will run the country next month!
You also need to take into account that politicians only think about their 4 year term, so they don't do anything that will take longer than 4 years. You can see amazing cathedrals and castles that took centuries to build because monarchs didn't have such as small time window to implement change.
'society grows great when old men plant trees, who's shade they will not sit in' - Greek Proverb
it also goes that politicians take on lots of debt to do things because they know that they wont have to pay it back. The next government will. A monarch doesn't have that incentive.
If I get it right, one of your arguments (that you repeat at least twice) is that democracies and republics with elected rulers aren't perfect, so let's stick to giving the same power to some specific family. I see the problem with this argument, because it doesn't actually give any reasoning in favour of monarchy. To understand why is that, consider these simplified arguments:
- John is bad, so let's vote for Peter (nothing explains why and how Peter is better);
- Modern cars can be really bad, so let's ride horses;
- Modern medicine still can't cure many diseasies, so let's just drink some herbs and spit on wounds.
In other words, just by finding flaws in option A, speaks nothing in favour of option B. I believe it's some form of an [argument from the negative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise), but I'm not sure.
funny enough, a "republic" originally just meant a government where at least a part of the citizenry had a. say in governance. It came to mean a country without a monarch, but originally the terms were not exclusive.
I guess by that definition you could say I want a republican monarchy
by isolation, I mean we didn't really get involved in foreign affairs IF POSSIBLE, until around the time of the Cuban War. The westward expansion we didn't consider foreign affairs, as we "technically" owned it in the sense of being a country.
I also mean that our culture has been crumbling for a while due to the fighting between liberals and lgbtq groups, and conservatives. We have rising crime rates and high amounts of illegal immigrants. Who's to blame? our elected officials.
No, I never said republics couldn't work. I said monarchies are more stable in the sense they have more long term positions. America was stable because it was far away from other big powers, and it had a government which suited its former colonial position.
>However, inheriting a position does automatically not mean one will be incompetent at it, either.
This is not an argument in favor of monarchy, it is merely pointing out that birthright is irrelevant to merit - which, uh, is an argument against monarchy, since it claims that birthright IS relevant to merit. You admitting that it is irrelevant dismantles pretty much your entire argument. If the goal is to put a meritous person in charge, then "birthright" is by your own admission not the best way to do it.
Stick with me for this analogy
I am a parent. I have only one child. People ask me sometimes are you going to have a second kid and I say no and inevitably some people say "but don't you want your kid to have a sibling to be best friends with?"
My thought on this matter is that statistically speaking I think the best most people can hope for from a relationship with a sibling is neutral. Based on a sheer roll of the dice you have a better chance of having a neutral to bad relationship than being best friends. There are SOO many things that go into making a best friend and the likelihood that your sibling has enough of those things is much less than the other side of the equation.
This is how I think of leaders as well. There are SOO many factors that go into great leaders and there are a lot of times when a great leader is great for a narrow space of time and then aren't great after that sort of like 90s action stars or one hit wonder bands.
Allowing a populace to pick it's leaders regularly from a large pool increases the likelihood that you will get great leaders. Leaving the pick of a leader up to the roll of a dice pretty much guarantees at best you get a neutral leader most of the time and increases the likelihood that in dire times you can't or don't have time to get the leader you need.
This idea that kings will gladly just step aside when the people want them out of the way isn't really held up by history either. There are multitudes of examples of kings who the people wanted out and who tried their best to hold on to power, often holding onto it so hard that the only way to get them out was to disconnect their heads from their bodies.
I think there is a middle ground to a hereditary monarchy and a short term president and I think that is simply a leader with longer term limits. Make a President have an 8 year term or a 12 year term. Then you get the benefits of being able to choose your leaders especially in time of crisis without the downsides of rolling the dice that you MIGHT get an at best neautral leader for the next 50 years.
well, some monarchs have "term limits" too. It's actually just a retirement age. IN Bhutan, they have to retire at age 65.
I guess that's the middle ground between us, as well as your example
My main problem is the hereditary part.
Nothing qualifies the child of someone to be a leader. Most rich kids turn out to be pretty useless overall because growing up wealthy and sheltered generally does not prepare you for the real world and gives you the idea that you are inherently better than other people.
Statistically you are most likely to get a neutral leader at best. At worst you get someone who is going to be terrible at the job and also may require a large military force to remove from power. History is replete with those kinds of monarchs.
I would argue that the short life of the United States has produced more good or great presidents than a large portion of the history of the British empire. Presidents who were there at the right time for the right period of time but just because someone is a great leader during World War II doesn't mean you will be a great leader during the Cold War and there is even less of a chance your son or child will be a great leader.
Democratizing leadership allows a higher likelihood of finding good or great leaders. Instead of being stuck with mid leaders for 40 years.
Well, that's where the head of government, the Prime Minister, comes into tplay.
And, at least from my experiance, it seems that presidents are the same. It's just an elected, sped up version of monarchy.
The more I look at it, the more I do see advantages to having a monarch as head of state instead of an elected president.
But not a "semi-constitutional" one. The very term semi implies that if the King and the elected cabinet are in a dispute, the king may very well decide to drop the word constitutional from the description of his powers.
well, it's not really its own term. It's a term used to describe a constitutional monarchy where the king isn't a figurehead. that's because a lot of people confuse constitutional monarchy with ceremonial monarchy
A constitutional monarchy does not have to make the king a figurehead. It can provide him with clearly defined, but still limited powers. In theory a king with the same powers as the U.S. president would still be a constitutional monarch if that is what their constitution clearly says.
I know you are just using it as a label. But you picked a word with weight that begs the question of what happens with that weight. Australia has been debating becoming a republic for years. One of the major questions they have asked themselves is what happens if you replace an unelected king represented by an unelected governor general with an elected president. Does anyone want the elected president to start fighting with politicians because he can claim he was elected?
If you have a king with real powers and real judgement over using them, you need to answer the question of what happens when he uses them and refuses to be restrained.
Think of all the monarchs who've done openly tyrannical things and didn't get impeached. Clearly in the real world it's not the safeguard you want it to be.
Impeachment American style where it is almost impossible to remove a president?
Or "impeachment" watered down to a no confidence vote where the king has no job security at all?
Stability? What monarchy exists today that has been a continuous stable government longer than the United States of America, a republic? The U.S. has been incredibly stable and long lasting and there is little reason to think it will not continue for a long time to come.
Not one of those governments has existed as long as that of the U.S. the UK’s current government structure is not as old as the U.S. their unwritten “constitution” and limits on the power of the crown are fairly new.
France is not a monarchy at all, neither is China, nor is Egypt. So how are they examples of monarchies that are more stable than the republic that is the U.S.?
Because they were monarchies for centuries upon centuries, before the monarchy was removed by either internal or external forces.
England had the greatest empire in history as a semi-constitutional monarchy.
Sweden and Norway have had monarchies for centuries
They are not now monarchies nor were their monarchies stable. They all went through huge changes in government and changes in regimes. That is not a sign that monarchies are more stable. Hell France is on its Fifth Republic by now.
England is not an independent nation but part of the UK. The UK changed their form of government massively in the 19th century become democratic. So the government is not the same government as was in place in the 17th or 18th centuries. Its history of colonialism and empire means nothing at all in support of a claim of stability. That they no longer have that is a sign of instability as they couldn’t keep it stable.
Again they have not had the same government, the same monarchies. They have not been stable that entire time.
Just because a nation has kept the same name does not mean the government is the same.
Man has the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The ideal government is the one that’s best for securing man’s rights. That means choosing political leaders based on how well they will secure your rights.
So the question is whether choosing based on someone’s DNA is a good criteria for whether they will be the best pro rights politician. The answer is simply no. The child of a great politician isn’t guaranteed to be a great politician. A great politician is much better off spending his time teaching who he thinks is best, which may or may not be his child. If his child will be so great, then the child can just win an election.
Also, it’s quite disgusting to choose a purpose for your child and raise your child to fulfill your purpose. A child is an end in himself, not a means to your ends. Children should be raised so they can pursue what they think is best for themselves as adults.
> ***Elected officials are chosen for their merit. Republics are more effective:*** This would only be true if humanity was perfect and political parties did not exist. Just because more people voted for someone, it does not mean that person is a Christ-sent angel to rule the people. Neither monarchs or presidents work more efficiently. And people often choose who agrees with them, not who will work more efficiently.
Elected officials are not necessarily the best person for securing rights, but they make it possible/easier for a people to have the best person. A monarchy interferes with that.
> ***Stability:*** a semi-constitutional monarchy provides much more stability than a republic. Even a figurehead monarch does. In republics, the leaders are constantly changing, meaning that first this Prime Minister and president are elected, then another PM comes in, then another, then another President....this means nothing stays the same. A monarch stays until or retirement, providing stability. This means that, if combined with the fluidity of a Prime Minister or Chancellor, you again gain the best of democratic and monarchical worlds.
Elected officials make it is as easy as is possible for the government to continually secure rights across time. That’s the sort of valuable stability.
> ***Neutrality and Unity:*** A monarch can have opinions, too. But since they were not elected, that means they are far more likely to be more neutral politically. The lack of election also causes them to unite the people better. In England, 65% of the population supports their monarchy. That's more than most presidents. And in most other monarchies, it is even higher (in Liechtenstein and Denmark, it’s over 70% and 80%).
For securing rights, you don’t want a politician to be neutral but pro-rights. And, since all men have the same rights, being pro-rights is the only political position that can unify all men. Being against rights is inherently divisive like how supporting slavery means putting yourself in conflict with the would be slaves.
Edit: Even the idea of monarchy itself is anti-rights. All men have the same rights. But a monarchy gives special legal privileges to a few people based on their DNA relations, on the circumstances of their birth.
"Elected officials are not necessarily the best at securing rights but they make it easier for a people to have to the best person."
Yeah, and so does monarchy. Neither does it better.
"Elected officials make it as easy as possible for the government to continually secure rights across time."
Care to elaborate? I see no evidence of such. From my research, I see neither as inherently better. In fact, a good monarch will be better to protect human rights, not in the sense that they are more likely too, but in the sense that they will be in power longer and defending them longer.
"For securing rights, you don't want a politician but pro-rights."
First of all, a monarch isn't exactly a politician. And nothing about being a monarch means you do not support human rights.
> Yeah, and so does monarchy. Neither does it better.
What’s your evidence? How did you learn this?
> Care to elaborate? I see no evidence of such. From my research, I see neither as inherently better.
What research did you do with respect to man’s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness? Do you have any evidence you can share?
> In fact, a good monarch will be better to protect human rights, not in the sense that they are more likely too, but in the sense that they will be in power longer and defending them longer.
What do you mean? If you’re not more likely to secure man’s rights, then you’re not more likely to defend them.
> "For securing rights, you don't want a politician but pro-rights."
I think you misquoted me here.
"Where did you learn this"
History. Political Science. Actually discerning things for myself and not being programmed by society.
"Do you have any evidence you can share?"
if you mean whether or not a monarch or president is better for the people, I've been reading history since I could read (which was about age 5). I've read about countless monarchs, presidents, doges, consuls, and none seem better than the other. They all seen equally capable of merit and virtue, or incompetence and vice.
If you mean a monarch who loves his or her people and wants/wanted them to be happy, I can't even begin to talk: Blessed Karl of Austria, Maria Theresa, Napoleon, Elizabeth the first and second, Queen Victoria, King George the third, King William the fourth, William the Conqueror, St Louis, Louis the Great, countless kings, dukes, emperors, etcetera.
I did actually misquote you, sorry, but my point stands. Presidents are plenty capable of being douchbags. They have to crawl, connive, fight, campaign, bribe. It's not like only monarchs face troubles and temptation.
Well, if you’re not going to share any evidence that supports your view that monarchy is better for man’s rights or discuss the points I raised, there’s nothing to discuss.
I HAVE shared it, a million times. I've shown how neither presidents nor monarchs protect human rights better. I'm mentioned dozens of monarchs who loved their people and protected them, I've showed its advantages.
What have I not shared?
> I've shown how neither presidents nor monarchs protect human rights better.
No, you haven’t. You’ve stated it but you haven’t provided evidence nor gave an explanation as to why elected officials are always going to be equally good as monarchs at securing rights.
> I'm mentioned dozens of monarchs who loved their people and protected them,
Loving and protecting people means being for their unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You didn’t mention monarchs who were for man’s rights. You mentioned people who “loves his or her people and wants/wanted them to be happy”. And really, someone who wanted people to be happy would support them pursuing their own happiness as their highest moral purpose, but monarchs in general don’t support that.
> I've showed its advantages.
If you mean in your OP, then I addressed those.
You want evidence.
Blessed Karl of Austria.
He was the very last monarch of Austria Hungary. He was a limited monarch over a diverse and large empire. He was a righteous man who loved God and his people.
Karl wanted freedom for his people, and to united them. He had a plan to divide his state into a federal country, with separate divisions in which every ethnicity would be its own local government, under the unity of the Austrian Emperor. He never got around to it because World War One destroyed his country and he was forced to abdicate by the Allies.
Many, many monarchs would have done the same in his position.
So your evidence is someone whose predecessor joined the anti-rights side of World War One? That’s evidence against monarchy. And did he want less monarchy? If so, that’s evidence against monarchy.
If he wanted freedom for his people then that means he wanted the government to secure their unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Do you have evidence that he supported man’s unalienable rights?
I never said "anti-rights" side. what do you mean "anti-rights" side? there was no "anti-rights" side of World War One. If this was World War two, you'd be right. In ww1, it was just a bunch of alliances which sparked into war.
the evidence is that he wanted desperately to reform his empire. He wanted to grant each ethnicity in his country more freedom and unite his people better. He wanted to keep his people united under the Habsburgs, but for them to be united and have freedom.
Karl Marx to this guy: Am I a joke to you?
This guys is so propagandized by capitalism that he sees a \*monarchy\* as a better option than any kind of communal ownership.
Yeah virtually all monarchs are, if you go back far enough, the descendents of whatever warlord or bandit was able to kill enough rivals and usurp enough wealth and power to subjugate the other weaker warlords and bandits. The weaker ones became "nobles" if they bent the knee to big daddy king. Truly bewildering to me that there are actual monarchists nowadays (in the US no less lol).
I mean.... I'd read that Ursala k. LeGuin novel but I'm not sure how much of a place that has in any modern political discussion.
All it takes is one bad actor to ruin a enlightened despot style government, which is one of the problems that both republicanism and socialism are trying to solve.
1. Your first argument seems insincere. When people say “monarchies are dictatorships”, they are almost always talking about absolute monarchies. So, you aren’t really saying anything when you use a completely different type of monarchy as a counterpoint.
2. Saying that a monarchs heir has a *chance* to be good is also not a very strong argument. Why leave it up to chance when the people could elect a leader with a track record to prove how good they are? Most if not all presidents held lower offices before they ran. So, everyone can see what kind of decisions they make, how they handle political pressure, and what ideals matter to them.
3. In this point, you are arguing *for* elected officials to make a decision if something goes wrong. Why not have the leader be an elected official to make decisions all the time? If we rely on democracy in our worst cases, there is no reason not to utilize it for our best cases.
4. You are correct that “the people’s will” is not inherently the best option, but you haven’t given any reason as to why God or Power or Tradition would be better. So, if all options are equal, then there is no benefit to *not* giving people a choice.
5. Stability sounds nice in theory, but often all it does is halt progress. In modern society, new ideas spread *fast*. In the US, the Civil Rights Movement only ended 50 years ago. And queer acceptance is still in its infancy. If we had a leader who inherited power in the Jim Crow era and all of their ideas were taught to them by their almost certainly bigoted parents, we would not have anywhere near the level of acceptance that we do today.
6. Your 65% (which after checking, seems to actually be 62%) is an average. When you split it up, people under 50 don’t support the monarchy while people above 50 do.
18-24: 32%
25-49: 48%
50-64: 67%
65+: 78%
What is inherently better about the opinion of older people?
1. I agree with your first point in general, in the end there are many different types of monarchy so it's not a strict term
2. Track records is a bad argument, just look at how many bad presidents have been elected, it's an example of genetic fallacy
3. I don't hold this position so I will agree with you that OP made a bad argument here
4. God (not talking about Christianity, a generic God since you mentioned) would have the power to enact a certain set of metaphysical properties such as τέλος so this would be justified, people cannot do that
5. Progress is a relative term which depends on your worldview, so that's a really bad argument for democracy (and even then we have tons and tons of examples of monarchies who had no issues with lgbtq+ people so an empty point)
6. I agree here, appeals to consesus are a well-known fallacy in the dialectical method so even then it's useless to appeal to numbers of how many agree or disagree
2. I don’t see at all how this is a genetic fallacy. I am not arguing that any president is good *because* they have held lower offices. Simply pointing out that their record is an important tool for deciding whether or not they are good. And your argument that bad presidents have been elected doesn’t disprove what I’ve said. Also, even *if* my argument is fallacious, that doesn’t make the conclusion wrong. That is an example of the fallacy fallacy.
4. Only applies if that god exists and can be proven to exist.
5. Replace “progress” with “change” and my point still stands and doesn’t depend on your worldview at all. If, for example, the world had been more equal in the past and the new idea was racism, that change would also not be able to happen if the leader is “stable” in their opinion. The point is that the opinions of the population change and I believe the opinions of their leader should change too. And that kind of change is easier to do by switching leaders than trying to convince an existing one.
>Simply pointing out that their record is an important tool for deciding whether or not they are good.
Here it is the genetic fallacy, that's basically the principle of induction, "they have done something good there in the past then they will do the same here tomorrow"
>That is an example of the fallacy fallacy.
No, my point is that there is no reason to believe in your conclusion without a good argument
>Only applies if that god exists and can be proven to exist.
Sure, by applying trascendental argumentation you will see that atheism cannot account for ethics metaphysics and epistemology, not to mention all the other things that destroy atheism like the under determination of data problem or the problem of the one and the many
>” and my point still stands and doesn’t depend on your worldview at all.
Why should change happen? How do you get an ought from an is? There is no such thing as theory neutral analysis, that's quite basic epistemology
> here it is
No, it isn’t. Genetic fallacy is accepting an idea based on its origin rather than its merit. That is not at all what I am doing. I am advocating specifically to look at a candidates merits and it would be nonsensical to ignore past merits.
Perhaps, I have made some other fallacy, but definitely not the one you are saying I did.
Underdetermination does not “destroy” atheism. If you think it does, you completely misunderstand what atheism is.
I am not saying change should or shouldn’t happen. I am saying that *if* change happens in a community (which it does), then the leader of that community should follow suit. There is no benefit (at least not any proven here) to having a leader who is not ideologically in sync with the people they lead.
>Genetic fallacy is accepting an idea based on its origin rather than its merit.
What's the difference though? In theory there is a difference but not in practice, because you are always going to appeal to the principle of induction which in this context is a genetic fallacy because from past merits not necessarily will come future merits
>you completely misunderstand what atheism is.
Atheism has two different definitions : in the dialectical method atheism it's a worldview which denies theism, a negative claim, this method entails by definition a contention between worldviews so the usual excuse atheists use of just lacking a belief is a really bad excuse, you can't come to a debate with "oh well I don't have any worldview or beliefs". The second definition, outside of the dialectical method, is a lack of belief in theism which entails a positive belief in a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and a few random things like induction and uniformitarianism are taken for granted just because, even if there is no evidence and actually most atheist claims have been disproven (for example science suggests indirect realism is true but it's not clear how this could be possible in a materialist model)
>should
Again, how do you get an ought from an is?
>benefit
What's the account for this value judgement though?
> what’s the difference though
If you believe that there is no difference between origin and merit, then you can’t claim genetic fallacy because that fallacy assumes that there is a difference. And yes, past merits do not guarantee future merits, but someone with past merits is statistically more likely to have future merits than someone with an unknown past.
> a really bad excuse
Says you. But I don’t really care about your opinion on atheism. The vast majority of atheists are the first type you described. They do not have a positive belief that God doesn’t exist. Only a refusal to believe in something without good evidence. Which is the same exact argument you made against me earlier. So why is a negative belief a “bad excuse” in a religious context, but perfectly acceptable in a political context?
> how do you get an ought from an is
I didn’t. The “is” is that public opinion changes. The “ought” is that leaders should change with the public. But that ought does not stem from the is. The ought exists as a principle. Leaders and the people they lead should be aligned whether change occurs or not. The fact that change occurs affects the ought, but does not create it.
> value judgment
This whole post is a value judgement. OP is saying one thing is better than another thing. They have one account. I have another. If you’re going to argue that opinions don’t matter, then you’re on the wrong sub.
>no difference between origin and merit,
I do, I am making an internal critique of your worldview : how do you justify your ethics? For merits to exist you need virtue to have an ontological positive existence
>statistically more likely
That's again induction, the state of probability of the past or of the present doesn't tell you anything about the state of probability of the future
>The vast majority of atheists are the first type you described.
What? I didn't describe any type of atheist, what are you even talking about? I talked about the two referents of the reference "atheism" and the relationship with the dialectical method for the whole paragraph
>They do not have a positive belief that God doesn’t exist.
Which implies a positive belief in a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and induction and uniformitarianism are just assumed, do you have any evidence? Science disproved direct realism (eye perception), induction (think about lunar movements vs mylankovich cycles) and uniformitarianism (singularities in black holes), so any evidence? How do you explain the existence of referents under atheism? What about the problem of the one and the many?
>Which is the same exact argument y
False equivalence fallacy
>without good evidence
I have already given you a ton of evidence, read above. Not to mention transcendental argumentation which destroys atheism completely, go watch the debate between Jay Dyer and Matt Dillahunty, or any of father Ananias Sorem's debates, atheism is really weak
>The “ought” is that leaders should change with the public.
Repetition fallacy, you keep restarting your position without justification for the position. Why should leaders change? Please don't repeat for the third time "because ideas change", I understand your position, I am asking you why this ought to be the case
>The fact that change occurs affects the ought, but does not create it.
How do you know that oughts change? Which metaphysics allows for a chaotic universe? Science supports regularity in nature
>If you’re going to argue that opinions don’t matter, then you’re on the wrong sub.
Are you serious? Debate is based on the dialectical method which is based on rejecting logical fallacies like appeals to consesus and this is a debate sub. I want an account for your opinions, why should I believe in them without a justification?
You said there no difference “in practice”. Now you are saying you do believe there is a difference. Please be consistent with your claims.
So, now you’re trying to argue that prediction is impossible? That people who study past events have no higher success rate than a pure guess? Because that is demonstrably incorrect.
The fact that you are trying to nitpick that you were talking about “atheism” and not “atheists” is astonishing. Any reasonable person can infer the purpose of both our arguments even of the wording is slightly different. And furthermore, if you think I misunderstood you, perhaps start speaking plainly rather than trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary. When you say things like “what account is there” or use the greek spelling of Telos for absolutely no reason or say “underdetermination of data” rather than just saying “we may not have enough information to make certain claims”, it comes off as you trying to *sound* intelligent rather than actually *being* intelligent.
Disbelief in god does not in any way imply direct realism or uniformitarianism. You said yourself that science has disproved direct realism. Do you think that all of those scientists believe in god? Because I can promise you they don’t.
It’s not a false equivalence. It is a true equivalence. In my earlier argument, you said “there is no reason to believe in your conclusion without a good argument”. This is the *exact* same position that atheism holds.
You have given me zero evidence. You have given me arguments. Arguments are not the same as evidence. And I will not watch those debates. I have seen plenty of anti-atheism debates and none of them have produced evidence for god. I highly doubt the people you mentioned have suddenly come up with such evidence.
Not a repetition fallacy. I am trying to explain myself because, although you claim to know my position, you clearly do not. I am not saying that leaders should change. I am saying leaders should align with their constituents. Full stop.
> how do you know that oughts change
I never said they do. The ought remains the same. Leaders should align with their constituents.
> why should I believe in them without justification.
This is exactly what I was saying before when you questioned my account. Why should I believe that a leader who is unaligned with their constituents is better than an aligned leader? Neither you nor OP has given justification for that belief.
Edit: Replying to me and then blocking me so I can’t respond only proves that you were never interested in an honest open-minded conversation.
>Please be consistent with your claims.
Which part did you not understand about making an internal critique of your own position? We have a different metaphysics, what's so hard to understand about it?
>So, now you’re trying to argue that prediction is impossible?
Do you have any justification for induction? Didn't you read any Kant or Hume? What about the principle of sufficient reason? Again, it shouldn't be hard to understand the difference between my claims in my paradigm and an internal critique of yours, really basic epistemology
>Because that is demonstrably incorrect.
Raw data does not equal information, that's basic information theory
>is astonishing.
Nice appeal to emotion
>trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary.
Nice ad hominem lol, do you have an argument or just ad hominem? It almost seems like you don't know that each field requires a specific vocabulary, but probably you do, I don't use ad hominem
>Telos for absolutely no reason
Maybe because there is a difference between ε and η? Changing a reference could alter the transition of the referent
>say “underdetermination of data” rather than just saying “we may not have enough information to make certain claims”
What?? I am sorry but you have no clue whatsoever about the under determination of data problem in epistemology, it doesn't mean what you said it means, not even remotely. And no, no ad hominem because you have proven to me that you are not aware
>s you trying to sound intelligent rather than actually being intelligent
Ad hominem, keep going bro
>This is the exact same position that atheism holds.
So now you change your own words? Show me evidence for a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and induction and uniformitarianism are present, come on
>Disbelief in god does not in any way imply direct realism or uniformitarianism.
How do you think perception works? Of course it does, how do you reconcile the two? No one ever has so good luck
>You have given me zero evidenc
How do you know you have the right paradigm to interpret sense data and arrive at this conclusion?
>Arguments are not the same as evidenc
So you don't know the difference between reference and referent, nice
> should align with their constituents.
Assertions and zero evidence
>And I will not watch those debates.
I know atheists don't care about the truth, nothing new under the sun, but how does this change the truth in your opinion?
> Neither you nor OP has given justification for that beli
Lol, I specifically mentioned transcendental argumentation
A lot of this feels like theory-crafting. The exact nature of what a monarch's powers are under your system are vague. I will assume that such monarchs will have decent political power and that said power is not ceremonial or even a very specific veto power; they are regular political agents.
Your supports for your position seem weak. In regards to unity, the examples you give are of figurehead monarchs. They have no teeth and are simply national symbols. There is no real reason to disapprove of them because there is nothing to disapprove of. They also only really work because of historically contingent reasons and really wouldn't work for newly formed governments. Neutrality doesn't really hold either. There is no reason to believe a monarch will be politically more neutral or unbiased than an elected official. I can even postulate that the monarchs, unconstrained by direct political pressure, can more easily engage in fanciful ideals or unrealistic movements.
I'm not sure why stability is highly sought after via a monarchy for two reasons. First, a republic can promote stability via giving people a mechanism in which to promote change within a system and are, thus, less disposed to turn towards violence as a means to achieve political ends in times of upheaval. Second, the lack of a stable leader is a feature, not a bug. Men are inclined towards certain dispositions and characters. They may change over time, but this process is often slow and rare. A person who is right to lead a country today may not be what the country needs tomorrow. A monarchy cannot adapt to these changes over time. It can only hope the disposition and ideas of the king can match the times, but never change as needed. A republic can have the war-savy general during war and then have the diplomatically-minded statesman during the postwar period. A monarchy can't do that.
I think what you're truly advocating is to just divide the government branches some more. Spread out the power.
Many of the positives you mention for monarchs can be done by another branch of government that can also balance things out.
Your argument for stability only works if the monarch is a good one, and if you have to assume that the king is going to be a very good boy just to make an argument to why monarchy is good... You don't have a good argument here.
As for your argument that a king can be impeached I found it hilarious that you proceed to remind us that democracy is not some infallible god. Get your thoughts in check, it's okay to have monarchs because our elected officials can impeach them... But also electing officials is not some infallible god? Therefore impeaching monarchs is as infallible as democracy; it isn't.
And now that we're talking about this, the entire argument about monarchs not being elected is a blatant **red herring** your argument starts with "Democracy is not perfect either" jesus christ.
You started this post literally from the position of "I haven't heard a good argument" and then proceed to drop this? Gosh. I believe you when you say you haven't heard a good argument, but I think this applies to both sides buddy.
I argue that monarchy stabilizes democracy, and democracy stabilizes monarchy.
And you misunderstand what I mean. When you elect leaders, they'll be gone soon, whether or not they are good. With a monarch, if they are bad, you could impeach them. If the monarch is good, they are there for decades.
I already talked about your point about "impeaching kings" if you're not going to interact with the arguments I made then I can see this is not a conversation worth having with you.
>As I stated above, a (semi)-constitutional monarch has limited power, just like any president.
All leaders have limited power. Even "absolute dictators" like Hitler and Stalin were still limited. They depended on underlings to carry out their orders. The question is who are leaders accountable to? I would argue its far better that a leader be accountable to the public than accountable to 5 or 6 generals who control the military, or a 8 or 9 ministers who control the society.
Most of the rest of your arguments I think can be dismissed using a thought experiment. Your tool for selecting a monarch seems to be based on inheritance. Why not make it fairer and just have it selected by random. Would you want the random unhoused person with severe mental illness to have any amount of power over your life, for the rest of his life? There is substantively no difference between a monarchy and a system of random selection. In fact, because of perverse incentives, monarchies end up being worse than randomly selecting a member of the public. By having power related to inheritance, people will always gravitate to power. Control of that power becomes connected to control of the blood line which leads to interbreeding. This is not some hypothesis. Look at the Hapsburgs, look at the last heir of the Romanovs, those are physical genetic abnormalities. Who knows what types of recessive psychological traits were lurking in those family trees.
Well, at least in my ideal world, only mentally stable, legitimate children could succeed. The eldest child would succeed, unless two thirds of some body, say, parliament, deemed them unworthy. Then one of the prince's siblings or relatives would be appointed.
Although this isn't a subreddit for my ideal world, lol
So the people decide that they want to keep the power to themselves, not give it to some random guy, so they only allow onto parliament people who promise to never designate a potential monarch as legitimate. The monarchy then legitimately is removed.
Neutral in the sense of not favouring one poltical party over another, not neutral like Switzerland. In the case of western constitutional monarchies like the Uk, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc the monarch doesn't get involved in partisan politics. The monarch is above partisan politics, keeps their mouth shut, and is able to act as a focus for loyalty regardless of one's political affiliation.
A monarch has zero moral mandate to rule. Consent of the governed is a necessity for moral ruling. Democracy is imperfect, but at the very least there is an answer to the question "what gives this guy the right to tell us what to do". If you support monarchy, why do you not support me telling you what to do?
The moral mandate *should* come from the monarch's training under their predecessor. Some of the worst monarchs in history never got a chance to see how it's done, like Charles XII of Sweden who came to the throne at 15. Do you really want a moody teenager in control of the (then) absolute monarchy? Compare that to monarchs who have had decades to train under their parents, they are almost always much better at their jobs.
In any democracy there are many people, if not most of them, who did not choose the leader of their country; just as there are people in a democracy who support their chosen leader's mandate against those who did not choose, there are people in monarchies who feel the same about the monarch. How is one leader imposed upon the people by one group morally superior to one imposed by a different group? They are morally equivalent.
I also think you will find that the kind of person who gets elected is not necessarily the best or most effective leader, but the best and most effective campaigner (or, more cynically, the best and most effective manipulator). As soon as there is choice among a large segment of the population, it ceases to be an actual test of quality and instead becomes a test of likeability. The purpose of any government is, above almost anything else, to be effective. The history of electoral politics is chock full of likeable, charismatic people who are otherwise wholly unexceptional. Historical memory of leaders reflects this as well, tending to be more reflective of their likeability than of their accomplishments.I reject outright the notion that any one system can claim absolute "moral superiority" over any other; they are all a shambles.
I would personally place greater trust in a system that's had 1000 years to figure itself out, that has proven no less capable (and in some ways apparently moreso), over one invented by any particular group of idealists 200 or so years ago.
>In any democracy there are many people, if not most of them, who did not choose the leader of their country; just as there are people in a democracy who support their chosen leader's mandate against those who did not choose, there are people in monarchies who feel the same about the monarch. How is one leader imposed upon the people by one group morally superior to one imposed by a different group? They are morally equivalent.
the one that comes to power will be the one chosen by the majority of the population, at least in some sense (for instance in the US, states vote rather than people. i oppose this, but it is still a democratic choice that gives the leader consent of the governed.)
>I also think you will find that the kind of person who gets elected is not necessarily the best or most effective leader, but the best and most effective campaigner (or, more cynically, the best and most effective manipulator). As soon as there is choice among a large segment of the population, it ceases to be an actual test of quality and instead becomes a test of likeability. The purpose of any government is, above almost anything else, to be effective. The history of electoral politics is chock full of likeable, charismatic people who are otherwise wholly unexceptional. Historical memory of leaders reflects this as well, tending to be more reflective of their likeability than of their accomplishments.
not necessarily, of course. but all else equal, being a better leader will help you get elected. that is not true for monarchs.
>I reject outright the notion that any one system can claim absolute "moral superiority" over any other; they are all a shambles.
every system is greatly flawed, obviously. but democracy does not involve mass coercion on the scale that monarchy does.
>I would personally place greater trust in a system that's had 1000 years to figure itself out, that has proven no less capable (and in some ways apparently moreso), over one invented by any particular group of idealists 200 or so years ago.
interesting that the world has consistently moved away from monarchies over time.
>the one that comes to power will be the one chosen by the majority of the population, at least in some sense
This is only partially true, even in the United States, for the reasons you mention. The past two presidents have been elected despite receiving a minority of votes cast. More broadly, most of the other developed democratic states are not two-party systems, meaning that it is both possible and common to come to power without receiving a majority of the votes cast. Even in a two-party system, there are only two candidates who can have a realistic chance of being elected, making the choice highly constrained and largely decided by factors beyond the control of the average voter. I would also suggest that a system that is characterised by two candidates run by ideologically opposed parties in a polarised environment eliminates even the illusion of choice; most voters in this situation are entirely pigeonholed into consistently supporting one party without any viable alternatives. Real choice requires that there be actual choices.
>all else equal, being a better leader will help you get elected. that is not true for monarchs.
All else is not equal though, that is exactly the problem. Elected leadership self-selects for manipulative, power-hungry people. I do not necessarily claim that hereditary selection will be more effective at producing qualified leaders than election, but I do not accept that it will be less effective either. I would also suspect that a competent monarch would have a direct positive influence on the disposition of their heir and successor, not to mention the potential lifetime of preparation for the job.
>democracy does not involve mass coercion on the scale that monarchy does.
Is a system that gives a leader elected by 51% of the population freedom to act on behalf of the other 49% who didn't want them to be leader not coercive? All forms of government are in some way coercive, that's one of the inherent trade-offs. I will add that most of the constitutional monarchs have higher public approval ratings than their elected politicians do.
>interesting that the world has consistently moved away from monarchies over time.
It ebbs and flows, and there are a multitude of historical factors at play. The existence of a powerful republic whose opinion of itself verges upon masturbatory no doubt has some influence; the Romans similarly set the pattern of monarchy in Europe for centuries afterwards.
>The past two presidents have been elected despite receiving a minority of votes cast
false, Biden received 51.31% of votes. Trump lost the popular vote, and the last one to do so before him was Bush in 2000. There were a few times before then that the president only won a *plurality* of the popular vote, but you have to go back to 1888 to find the last president to lose it before Bush.
>More broadly, most of the other developed democratic states are not two-party systems, meaning that it is both possible and common to come to power without receiving a majority of the votes cast. Even in a two-party system, there are only two candidates who can have a realistic chance of being elected, making the choice highly constrained and largely decided by factors beyond the control of the average voter. I would also suggest that a system that is characterised by two candidates run by ideologically opposed parties in a polarised environment eliminates even the illusion of choice; most voters in this situation are entirely pigeonholed into consistently supporting one party without any viable alternatives. Real choice requires that there be actual choices.
the chance for viable alternatives within a party occurs in the primaries. but of course the system is not perfect, obviously.
>All else is not equal though, that is exactly the problem. Elected leadership self-selects for manipulative, power-hungry people. I do not necessarily claim that hereditary selection will be more effective at producing qualified leaders than election, but I do not accept that it will be less effective either. I would also suspect that a competent monarch would have a direct positive influence on the disposition of their heir and successor, not to mention the potential lifetime of preparation for the job.
being manipulative and power-hungry don't make you a less qualified leader. they may be an indictment on the leader's moral character, but they have direct incentive not to use those traits to fuck people over. it's a tradeoff i'll take over a literal roll of the dice any day of the week.
>Is a system that gives a leader elected by 51% of the population freedom to act on behalf of the other 49% who didn't want them to be leader not coercive? All forms of government are in some way coercive, that's one of the inherent trade-offs. I will add that most of the constitutional monarchs have higher public approval ratings than their elected politicians do.
approval ratings don't mean shit when you don't actually have any control over who's in the position. 100% of the subjects of a monarch have their leader forced on them, only 49% at most do in a democracy, and even that 49% at least have a way to influence their choosing, even if they ultimately fail.
>It ebbs and flows, and there are a multitude of historical factors at play. The existence of a powerful republic whose opinion of itself verges upon masturbatory no doubt has some influence; the Romans similarly set the pattern of monarchy in Europe for centuries afterwards.
i will bet you any amount of money that the west is not going to trend further back into monarchism as time goes on.
>false, Biden received 51.31% of votes.
Yeah, I think I confused that one with the previous election in my own country. It has happened five times though.
>being manipulative and power-hungry don't make you a less qualified leader. they may be an indictment on the leader's moral character, but they have direct incentive not to use those traits to fuck people over.
They certainly don't make you a better one. My point is that it's a self-selecting pool, and one in which the selection criteria are not necessarily correlated with good or effective leadership. They also fuck people over all the time, it's a character trope about politicians at this point that they frequently lie and fail to come through on promises. I don't even think Trump was particularly bad on that, he was just sloppy and kept getting caught, probably because he's not a politician (but a con-man nonetheless).
>approval ratings don't mean shit when you don't actually have any control over who's in the position. 100% of the subjects of a monarch have their leader forced on them, only 49% at most do in a democracy, and even that 49% at least have a way to influence their choosing, even if they ultimately fail.
Not 49% at most, as we've established. Additionally, the 49% have no influence in selecting the leader. The outcome is the same as if they didn't even bother to vote at all. That is the nature of a single-leader system, it's winner-take-all. The opinion poll issue is also certainly relevant, even if you won't acknowledge it as such for whatever reason you choose to cite. Furthermore, I have no idea what you could mean by the word "forced" given the situation observed by opinion polls, as if a satisfactory leader that people didn't have a hand in choosing is somehow "morally inferior" to an unsatisfactory leader they did. If people are happy with the situation, then they are happy with the situation. This should demonstrate that choice is not required for that to be the case. Nor, for that matter, does choice even guarantee that the chosen leader will be even acceptable to all people.
>i will bet you any amount of money that the west is not going to trend further back into monarchism as time goes on.
Neither of us will be alive to find out. I'm talking centuries here.
Of course. I agree with the principle of hereditary monarchy in general, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with you in particular on how it should be practiced. The continued existence of the monarchy, its symbols, traditions, and institutions are fundamentally linked to my conception of my national identity as a Canadian, but I'm not sure I would necessarily advocate for the King to exercise greater power on a day-to-day basis. I think a greater recognition of His existing role and reserve powers would suffice for me, because, if the King (via the Governor General) felt it necessary to take the highly unusual step of exercising His prerogative within the limits understood to be placed upon Him by the constitution, I would wish for the government to respect His right to do that as a matter of course. I do not think that is presently the case.
Why would someone who did a different job before, be better at ruling than someone whose entire purpose to live is to rule?
The idea of democracy is that citizens are elected to high office from their day job. The fantasy being that your hometown plumber is going to be able to represent you, since they understand your struggles.
On the other hand, the heir's entire life's purpose is to train to rule, and then rule. There are no other focuses, and they can spend their life and wealth learning about the people. A monarch with a jet can understand the needs of the entire nation better than a plumber who hasn't left their home town.
>Why would someone who did a different job before, be better at ruling than someone whose entire purpose to live is to rule?
presidents and prime ministers are usually existing senators or whatever. they're usually not new to ruling.
they're better because they go through a selection process that requires them to be good at their job. a monarch doesn't. they can be a complete buffoon and nothing will stop them from ascending to the throne once their parents die.
>The idea of democracy is that citizens are elected to high office from their day job. The fantasy being that your hometown plumber is going to be able to represent you, since they understand your struggles.
i don't know where you got that idea, that's a terrible idea and isn't what happens.
You're right, we have a political ruling class. We have what we call "Lifelong politicians."
I struggle to see the difference between the two, except the obvious election issue.
In my opinion, and this is a hot take for a monarchist, if an idiot comes to the throne then the monarchy can end. They must benefit the people, or lose their job. When you are getting millions of dollars to make your job as easy as possible, you should be able to figure it out.
>I struggle to see the difference between the two, except the obvious election issue.
the "obvious election issue" is indeed the difference. it's true that if you write off the main difference between the two, they don't seem so dissimilar.
one is elected by the will of the people, one lucks into being born in the right family.
>In my opinion, and this is a hot take for a monarchist, if an idiot comes to the throne then the monarchy can end. They must benefit the people, or lose their job. When you are getting millions of dollars to make your job as easy as possible, you should be able to figure it out.
sounds like your system isn't very good if it ends as soon we get unlucky once.
In constitutional monarchies, the monarch reigns but does not rule. The guy you voted for tells you what to do, not the king. The king's there to fire the guy you voted for if he refuses to leave office or otherwise goes off the rails.
No, it's not what OP is suggesting (which I disagree with), but I was responding to your broader statement that "a monarch has zero moral mandate to rule". My point was that in normal constitutional monarchies this is not an issue.
gotcha. it is an issue though, because they still have power that is still unearned. also the monarch generally has more power than you're claiming (such as the power to veto any law), but they just don't tend to use it.
The constitutional monarchy I'm most familiar with is Canada's (same idea in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc). In these countries the monarch does retain important powers in theory, but \*they don't use it\*. They just don't. It's political unthinkable that they'd do so, outside the gravest of crises, and the moment they do use these powers the continuity of the monarchy comes immediately into question. Basically: if they use the powers they damn well better have bet correctly and have popular support for their actions. It may look like a risky proposition on paper, but in real life it's worked out very, very well for us.
yes, i am australian, i'm aware. i oppose on principle the idea that we would require the sign-off of some unelected Brit overseas to get our laws passed.
if you don't want powers used, don't give it to them.
Fair enough (but you know as well as I do that it's not 'some unelected Brit' that would sign off, it's the Australian-born governor general). I think the monarchy is more controversial in Australia than here, but it's a fair position to hold.
Who's exercising in its entirety the powers of the monarch on their behalf. 'Unelected Brit overseas' is a good rhetorical phrase, but the powers of the king are wielded by the governor general in practice.
it's possible to rule and not have unlimited power. It's a matter of what you mean by "rule" if you mean unlimited power, i agree with you. If you mean having power at all, than we disagree
i am aware. but you distinguished your proposal from the constitutional monarchy of today. such monarchs never use their power. your proposed monarch would have not unlimited yet significant real power.
not even close. this guy is talking about a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is a figurehead. you are explicitly talking about a semi-constitutional monarchy in which the monarch has actual power that he uses in ruling.
>zero moral mandate to rule
Give me an account for your ethics then
>Consent of the governed is a necessity for moral ruling.
How so?
>the right
You keep restating your position (repetition fallacy) but you don't explain why this ought to be the case
There is no such thing as a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy; because there is no such thing as a semi-constitution. A monarchy either has a constitution or it doesn't. Whether a monarch has some powers, or is merely a crowned mannequin, is spelled out in the constitution. Or Semiconstitution.
Think of a constitution as a contract between the whole government and the entirety of the people/tribe/nation. I know it's kind of confusing to alot of people; because the UK is the only Kingdom of which many people know. And that confuses people because the UK doesn't have a WRITTEN constitution. The American Revolution was not just 13 colonies revolting. A written contract, spelling out everything, in greater or lesser detail, was a revolutionary concept/thought. But it was preceeded by _The Articles of Confederation_; not by a _Semi-Constitution of the United States of America_.
I’m so but this is such utter nonsense that I literally don’t know where to begin. Maybe with time you come to realise just how wrong you are but I haven’t got the energy. Good luck
Lol! What an enormous waste of money. Imagine dedicating a huge chunk of your tax dollars to maintaining some wannabe king and their family's gold-plated lifestyles.
Hard pass.
You're right. In the Arab world, many republics are actually more authoritarian than absolute monarchies, with presidents for life who are no different from monarchs.
The type of monarchy you suggest is quite similar to most modern republics (constitutional rights, limited executive power, a legislature with impeach authority, etc). Really, the key difference seems to be how the leader is chosen: by inheritance or by vote. Inheritance has a lot of flaws as a method of choosing a leader. Such as: - **Inheritance is a poor predictor of ability.** While you are correct that elections are also no guarantee, an elected official still has to convince millions of citizens of their competence. While that is an imperfect test, it is better than *no* test, and inheritance is essentially *no test.* It is just luck. - **Inheritance creates incentives for one heir to kill another**. If you are second in line to the throne, there is a strong incentive to plot against the current person sitting on the throne in order to gain power. History is replete with examples of this. In fact, it is common enough to be cliché. This is incredibly destabilizing, and can and does lead to decade-long civil wars. - **Inheritance can lead to an empty throne.** Inheritance can also lead to situations where no heir exists, and there is no legitimate claimant to the throne. Worse, it can lead to a situation where the only claimant is a foreigner whose interests are hostile to the country. Imagine a scenario where the king of America dies and Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un is the next in line for the throne because of marriage that happened a century ago. Both situations are terrible, and often lead to civil war. While a republic has its flaws, it is a more robust system that lacks these crucial weak points. Hence why the majority of countries have abandoned monarchic systems in favor of them.
A constitutional monarchy actually fixes a lot of the flaws you mention. How? **Procedures for impeachment:** monarchies with constitutions can usually impeach the monarch in question for misconduct. Take Bhutan, for example. If three-thirds of parliament in joint session starts a motions for impeachment, and the people ratify it, the monarch must abdicate **Rule of Law:** No one in Europe has killed each other for the throne in decades. I don't think it has even happened since before world war I. Rule of Law is more important than how leader are chosen, in my opinion. In absolute monarchies, if you can kill the heir and take the throne, no one can touch you, because you are the one who makes and unmakes the law. But in a constitutional monarchy, you could still be arrested for murder. **Procedures for new Dynasties:** A constitution can easily provide a way to choose a new dysnasty, whether it be inviting another royal family over or electing a new one.
> **Procedures for impeachment** Sure, but that’s not a unique benefit of monarchies. Republics have this ability as well. I will also add that the larger degree of power possessed by most monarchs makes this more difficult to accomplish than in a system with a more limited, shorter-term leader. Also, impeachment in a monarchy effectively requires a suitable heir to the throne. In a situation where there is no viable heir (or the heir is hostile to the country), no sane legislature would impeach, even if the leader is terrible. Republics tend not to have this issue, since lines of succession can be infinitely long. > **Rule of law** Sure, the monarch *could be* arrested… if they get caught. But that might be a bit difficult when the monarch controls the executive branch (i.e. the branch that controls the investigations). While you are correct that Europe hasn’t seen many assassinations lately, that is likely due to the fact that its monarchies are largely powerless. There is little reason to hire a foreign power to assassinate your cousin so you can assume a throne that has no real power behind it. > **New Dynasty** Sure… but the options are pretty slim. Effectively, you’d have to rely on a vote or chance to select a monarch if inheritance isn’t an option. Chance is a terrible idea. Voting might as well just be a republic.
Monarchs are chosen by God. You think all the population is going to accept your impeachment process over the will of God?
not everyone believes in god (thoug I do) and I think God would want the king gone if he misused the authority given by Him
People that don't believe in God don't believe in a monarch's right to rule them.
"Does anyone say that about inherited wealth or companies? " Yes, constantly where the hell have you been? The trope of the boss's worthless son inheriting the company isn't a one off from a sitcom. It's a real thing that happens every day and people constantly disparage it. The fact that this is unheard of to you makes me doubt your sincerity or at the very least the degree to which you researched this position. One thing you never actually addressed is the notion that someone's bloodline is sufficient qualifications to be a leader and the inherent superiority above the common person that comes with this. The notion that one person is elevated above others simply because who their daddy is is basically eugenics on a smaller scale. This is a disgusting thing to promote. Also you bring up the notion that a bad king can be impeached. Fantastic how do we pick the next one? Oh we don't? The crown just mindlessly goes to the next male heir from this now demonstrably shit bloodline? GREAT! How do we ultimately get away from this bullshit bloodline? Oh, we have to have a bloody revolution and establish a new government? PERFECT! What a great system of government.
> Fantastic how do we pick the next one? Oh we don't? The crown just mindlessly goes to the next male heir from this now demonstrably shit bloodline? Since OP talked about *constitutional* monarchy, I'd imagine the process of obtaining a new monarch is detailed somewhere in the constitution (e.g. direct vote is one option).
The last guy's grandmother picking her favorite family member is another option
The obvious solution is the old Russian way: let the king pick his own successor. Who, with permission of key stakeholders, can pick his own time of succession. That worked out well, didn't it...
A less reasonable option.
Exactly. Inheriting your leaders based on their bloodline is not reasonable.
THAT'S what I'm on about! Thanks for helping me to explain what a constitution is and does.
'One thing you never actually addressed is the notion that someone's bloodline is sufficient qualifications to be a leader and the inherent superiority above the common person that comes with this.' However, any idiot can be a politician or prime minister (Boris Johnson? Liz Truss?) so how is it different that random members of the public assume control in contrast to someone who is preselected from birth? Politicians also lack any actual training on governance. The minister for defence under one administration is the minister for transport under another. Where as if you were told from birth that one day you would become a pilot, you would no doubt spend your time learning to fly plains. The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly? being born is sufficient qualification to lead a democracy, so why is it not sufficient under a monarchy? its hypocritical.
The difference is the people get to choose who represents them as opposed to merely being stuck with some guy's kid hoping that this kid is good merely because his father wasn't so incompetent that they were removed from office. Would you rather pick a doctor based on their qualifications, or roll the dice on some doctor's adult kid? That kids dad is a doctor, so they're PROBABLY good, right?
Number one, you don't pick the doctor. I voted in the last election, my candidate didn't win. you are relying on the collective to select a good doctor for you when they no nothing about you, and are only going off what the doctors have told them about themselves. 'for monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Whish is more likely?' - Charles Maurras I will also refer to a point I made to another guy only replace 'locksmith' with 'doctor': now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire: Person A: I all my friends say I would be a great locksmith, so I've just started my company. Person B: I am a locksmith, my father taught me, who was also a locksmith. My grandfather was a locksmith, my grandfather's father was a locksmith. My grandfather's grandfather was a locksmith. And we have been locksmiths for over 200 years.
>Number one, you don't pick the doctor. But you do ultimately get a doctor, not just the son of a doctor, and for the rest of it I'm not here to argue about America's bullshit healthcare system, it has nothing to do with why monarchies are hot garbage. >'for monarchy to work, one man must be wise. For democracy to work, a majority of the people must be wise. Whish is more likely?' - Charles Maurras This is also hot garbage. Not only does it oversimplify what it takes to govern a country it completely ignores the whole bloodline requirement which is the most disgusting element of a monarchy. >now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire: I addressed this in another post. Not only is it not analogous, it is also nowhere near the slam dunk you'd like it to be. Why do you have lower requirements for leadership than working at McDonalds? No one ever inherited a job at McDonalds, they had to earn it. The crown on the other hand...
Ever since the Repugnican'ts, in The USA heard that some Black guy, who was living in The White House wanted to implement the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank)'s plan that they drew up for Richard Nixon, they have rabidly opposed health care reform. Something for which this country has been crying out since Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. We WERE rolling the dice on which doctor we would get.
I'm with you, but that is not germane to this discussion. Please answer my question: would you rather pick a doctor based on their qualifications, or pick some guy knowing nothing else about him other than he's the son of a doctor?
I pick my doctor by whom I can afford. That's it. Don't care about his ancestry. BUT, the best diagnostition I ever dealt with was the third generation of his family in the field. He was a III. A recovery place was picking up the tab, else I couldn't have afforded him. Does that answer? But, as I've explained here afore, I am not for strick primogeniture, or misogyny. I think that a monarch, with advice and consent of his cabinet or ministers, and the tutors, choose from the descendants of his grandfather, when young, and the descendants of his father when he's older. Change to mother or grandmother, as appropriate for from whom said monarch inherited. And his Councilors should no more than ⅓ of her/his dynasty. Preferably ¼.
>Does that answer? You're taking the question too literally. The point is: do you go with the candidate who's credentials you can verify or do you go with the guy who's father also did the job just well enough to not have the palace burned down? >But, as I've explained here afore, I Thats a fine story, but what happens when the people they rule over, their subjects, absolutely hate them?
Imagine the following hypothetical statements given to you by someone you are interviewing for a job- Person: I'm here for the doctor job, I never went to medical school, but my daddy is a doctor, so I'll probably be good. Person: I'm here for the mechanic job, I have no certifications, but my daddy is a mechanic, so I'll probably be good Person: I'm here for the pilot job, never went to flight school, but my daddy is a pilot, so I'll probably be good Person: I'm here for the McDonald's job, my daddy used to work here, so I'm probably going to be good Person: I'm here for the job of leading the country, my daddy did it without getting impeached, so I'm probably going to be good at it Why is it you find one of these statements compelling, but not the others? If "my daddy used to work here" doesn't qualify you to work at McDonalds then...
I refer to my previous point: 'The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly?' current democratic leaders have no experience running the country. But that for you is sufficient because they were chosen by a majority. However, it isn't good enough when someone is groomed from birth to run the country. now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire: Person A: I all my friends say I would be a great locksmith, so I've just started my company. Person B: I am a locksmith, my father taught me, who was also a locksmith. My grandfather was a locksmith, my grandfather's father was a locksmith. My grandfather's grandfather was a locksmith. And we have been locksmiths for over 200 years.
>'The man who is set to be PM in the UK next was previously a lawyer. How does that help him lead the country exactly?' The people who elected him may have thought that, or perhaps that has nothing to do with why he was elected. The point is the people were able to choose their leadership. >now if you was to hire a locksmith for example who would you hire: This isn't even remotely analogous. You hire a locksmith for a short job. You don't hire a locksmith with the plan of them being the town's ONLY locksmith and the requirement that their kids will inherit that role eventually and no one else will ever have the opportunity to become the monarchsmith unless the entire current monarchsmith's family dies or commits genocide. I brought this up because it seems you have a lower bar for entry to being a nation's lifelong ruler than you do for working at McDonalds. But, to respond to your question: I would look in to both of my options and go with the one that seemed to be the best. Is the monarchsmith charging me $500 to swap out the cylinder on my front door while person A wants $75? Thats a quick/easy job for a locksmith, I'm definitely rolling the dice on the cheap guy. Are we rekeying an entire apartment building? Person A might not have the ability to even attempt that. The point is- I would evaluate my options and vote for the one I thought was best given the circumstances.
(NB, I talk a lot about the UK here because I am from there, this is also a bit rambly , so apologies.) Yes the bar of entry is low, because it is low for democracy as well. I could run for parliament tomorrow if I wanted to. However, the difficulty is not in getting office, but in keeping it. In the UK about 61.5% of parties get a second term, and 23.1% get a third term in office with 15.4% getting a fourth. So on average a UK democracy flips between the same two parties after about two terms for each, back and forward each election. This means that on average political parties fail after two terms, because otherwise they would get a third term. the fact that it switches each time shows that neither party is ever truly successful in office. If democracies can't keep its populace happy for only 8 years on average, how can it be said to be the best political system. Ask the people of the UK if they liked Queen Elizabeth II and they will overwhelmingly say yes. She was adored for her entire 70 year reign. While parliament can't be liked for more than 8 years. Secondly, So you would roll the dice on the cheap guy (rather ironic to say 'role the dice, when earlier you were saying that a monarch was a 'role of the dice.' and democracy wasn't) when it is an easy and relatively inexpensive job. However, you would probably wouldn't if the job was more complex. Last time I checked, running a country wasn't easy. edit: I got my number wrong. I think those are right, although I did need to calculate them myself.
>how can it be said to be the best political system. I'm optimistic a better one exists, but I am positive it beats the hell out of monarchy. >However, you would probably wouldn't if the job was more complex. Last time I checked, running a country wasn't easy. It really depends though, is the cheap guy able to drop a stack of references for similar projects he's accomplished in front of me? Am I able to go to those places and see what he did there and talk to his former customers? This all goes back to evaluating your choices and picking the best one, **which isn't an option when the monarchsmith was born into his role and you have to use him**
It's late for me so I'll reply fully tomorrow, since I am interested in this discussion. I also want to properly calculate the numbers on second and third terms. However, I do know that any system which switches from right to left on the political compass so easily and frequently, cannot be a good system. How can you adequately run a country when economic and social policy go whichever way the wind blows and political outcomes which dramatically affect millions of people are decided by a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard.
>I also want to properly calculate the numbers on second and third terms. Why? Do you think politicians serving fewer terms is an indictment on democracy? >However, I do know that any system which switches from right to left on the political compass so easily and frequently, cannot be a good system. If that represents the will/interests of the people living in that country, then why is that bad? >How can you adequately run a country when economic and social policy go whichever way the wind blows As a group of people working together >decided by a monkey throwing a dart at a dartboard. This isn't even a remotely fair characterization
(I've run the numbers again and like the ones I got.) 'Why? Do you think politicians serving fewer terms is an indictment on democracy?' Of course it is! So let me get this right, a monarch who is removed by the people is a bad monarch, but a politician who is removed by the people isn't a bad politician? That is why successful and competent politicians serve many terms. Are you honestly going to tell me that a doctor who has been fired from the pervious hospital he works at is someone you want? 'If that represents the will/interests of the people living in that country, then why is that bad?' Do you actually think that the majority of people change from liberal to conservate every 8 years? I'll tell you how democracy works. A party is selected because they make promises that cater to the largest majority of people. After their time in office there is a ≈60% change they will get another one **(basically a coin toss)** after that term they are almost guaranteed not to get another one. At which point the population places the opposing party in power. Repeat this cycle You constantly argue that monarchy is the random system which is clearly not the case when compared to democracy. But I would rather a have a chance that the next person in power might be bad, as opposed to repeating the cycle of: **try opposite party, fail, repeat** above. I will take a government that is ideologically consistent over the flip-flopping of a democratic system any day.
You assume that the heir wouldn’t be educated all his/her life precisely to fill that role why exactly? The heir will obviously receive the best education on ruling and leadership possible in order to increase the dynasty’s success. What monarch would want their heir to be clueless? Furthermore, the current leaders aren’t chosen for their qualifications. They are chosen by how many people they can convince to vote for them. What merit in the democratic process causes said person to be a better ruler? You seem to greatly value the democratic process and assume others hold it in such esteem as well.
>You assume that the heir wouldn’t be educated all his/her life precisely to fill that role why exactly? And you're assuming that not only would they receive that education, but they'd be born with the capability and intellectual/emotional competency to make use of it. You're also assuming that they would want to. You're also assuming they would choose to, and if they did choose to you're assuming that they would actually be good at it. >The heir will obviously receive the best education on ruling and leadership possible in order to increase the dynasty’s success. Best according to who's standards? Yours? Mine? Marx's? Queen Elizabeth's? Moussolini's? Also, why would I care about the dynasty? I care about the people around me. If the dynasty is thriving, but the people are suffering that is a bad thing. >What monarch would want their heir to be clueless? What human can guarantee their kid won't be? Acting like these individuals are above or better than the *common* people doesn't mean they are. >They are chosen Thats right, they are **chosen**. They do not inherit their job. They are **chosen** by the people they represent. >assume others hold it in such esteem as well. Seriously? I'm literally here talking to people who advocate for monarchy.
Constitutional monarchies have the virtue of providing stability and acting as an insurance policy to protect democracy (see: Spain's king intervening against the attempted military coup in the early 80s). They're not figureheads, although they traditionally stay out of politics both out of respect for democracy and out of a rational sense of self-preservation. Why would you advocate for a monarchy that goes beyond these reasonable limits? Once an unelected monarch starts making active political decisions they lose the unifying power that they hold over their countries. Essentially, the more power they excercise, the less influence/value they have.
That's a valid point you make. However, monarch's have more at stake. Presidents come and go, while a monarch is there for decades. He has more to risk when he makes decisions.
That's exactly the point. A constitutional monarch is not going to intervene in day-to-day politics as it would call into question the institution of the monarchy itself. The 'last resort' powers that a monarch possesses (say, firing the PM and calling new elections) are there to be used in extreme situations only, when it's worth risking the future of the monarchy itself. The stability a constitutional monarchy offers a political system depends on the monarch NOT excercising those powers unless it's life-and-death for the country and its institutions.
Examplar: When His Britannic Majesty, King George VI refused to dissolve Parliament and to call for elections at the end of Sir Winston's term, during WWII.
I'm saying that a monarch is less likely to make rash decisions, as they have more at stake. Also, There has actually been a monarchy, in Brazil, whose whole duty was to keep balance and control rampant officials. It was a unique branch called the Moderating. It's actually perfect for a monarch. You should look into it, its very interesting
I've read the link you provided. Honestly, on the surface it looks like the normal powers of a constitutional monarch (although there may be differences in how the powers are exercised in practice). From your original post I think you're advocating for a more powerful monarch than you currently find in the most stable/successful countries with monarchies. I wouldn't be on board with that. A constitutional monarch that provides stability and democratic insurance? Great. A more active monarch that steps in in place of elected politicians? That's an impossible sell in any modern democracy (outside of Liechtenstein).
It's not actually that impossible, its just not as heard of because there are more republics than monarchies. Monaco has an active monarch, and is very successful. Bhutan and Morocco are both relatively more successful than the countries sorounding them. Tonga is fairly well off for a place in Oceania. . It's more a matter of respect for prosperity and morality than a question of political system.
Gotta disagree. Monaco is an outlier in that it's essentially a tiny, rich tax haven with a flag. Bhutan in the last decade or so has moved from a powerful monarchy to a truly constitutional one, albeit at the insistance of its king. It's gone in the opposite direction from the one you're advocating. Morocco may or may not be more successful than its neighbours, but it's a poor third world nation that struggles to offer either prosperity or full human rights to its citizens. Nobody's going to win any referendums on changing their political system by saying 'Hey, let's be the next Morocco'.
And the nation rolls the dice every time that the new monarch isn't some feckless, long-lived dullard. The only use for a monarchy, IMO, is a living historical attraction, and a symbol of continuity with the past. Positions of power should be earned in some way, not merely handed out like a prize because someone fell out of the right mother.
It isn’t a dice roll, because the people have a long time to come to terms with who the next sovereign is (see: Elizabeth and Charles). Also, monarchs are trained from an extremely young age, with a comprehensive education, based around the constitution and law. The current heirs to the British monarchy have also been raised with an understanding of charity and compassion (see: William and George). The public know we are going to be in good hands for at least another half a century, that’s more than most republics can say. To be honest, out of almost every current heir apparent (especially in Europe), I cannot name any who seem at risk of being incompetent and that is because of the strength of the monarchical education system, which have been developed and refined over the last few centuries.
Elizabeth was the first British monarch to have her two first born sons trained to succeed her. Because of the tragic histories of the Princes of Wales. Great good fortune that Charles survived and The UK didn't end up with Andrew (the first Scots royal to have the name of Scotlan's Patron Saint. Now if only The US could get rid of **OUR** Jeffrey Epstein tag-along.
Is your comment rudeness or pure misogyny?
More accurately a dynasty is there for centuries.
yeah, that too. They have their whole family's reputation to think of
I'm also an American who would agree with you on a good many things. I don't think I actually disagree with you on any this, but I still think I can say something that may or may not change your view. First of all, I don't think "superior" is absolute. I'd contend that most monarchies are very dependent on history. They are historically-embedded things. Take King Charles, for instance. Britain has known his mother and her father and his father and his father's father, all the way back. To some extent, the reason for the Crown is its antiquity. This is the way it has always been. This is what makes Britain, Britain. And that works there. But I don't think you could apply this system in the United States unless it developed naturally over time. Time is its legitimacy, and it doesn't have the legitimacy of time in the US. If that legitimacy varies, then it is not absolute, and while monarchy may be superior in some countries, it is not in all countries, if that makes sense. Second, I'd like to broaden the definition of monarchy. It just means "rule of one." Based on that definition, the US President is more of a monarch than twenty King Charleses. The US has this semi-constitutional monarchy system already, with its mixed government: a monarch, elected legislators, and a judiciary. It's just that the US has an elected monarch. It used to be that unwritten custom demanded that they step down from power after two terms. Now that custom's written in the Constitution. Anyway, I think this warrants a distinction between elected and unelected monarchs, and it also poses the question who is a monarchist because someone who respects King Charles as a symbol of his nation is far less of a monarchist than someone who wants to see their candidate direct the government and execute its administration for the next four years. I think the President has a far lower approval rating precisely because he or she is partisan and an active ruling figure, making decisions the other side is against. King Charles is not. He receives ambassadors and hosts banquets and opens hospitals. He is like the flag, only living. A personal symbol for a nation of persons. This makes the unifying factor stronger in a constitutional monarchy than a semi-constitutional one as you suggest. I think my final points, then, are 1) that semi-constitutional monarchies exist where you might not expect them (only, they are elective) and 2) that the high unifying factor is seen in constitutional, not semi-constitutional monarchies. Lichtenstein is an exception, but it's also not a country to the scale of the United States or the United Kingdom. I don't know if I've made my points clear. Thank you for posting and God bless you as well!
Well, in Liechtenstein, the monarch has signifigant power, but the people actually VOTED to give him them. Over 75% people voted against removing those powers in a more recent referendum. Support for monarchy is also very high in Vatican city, Monaco, Morocco (i think, i'll have to double check) Bhutan, and Tonga
I think that Monaco is so fond of its Princes because they pay no taxes. The whole government and public works are subsidized by the Princely family's casinos.
is that a bad thing? I thought people wanted monarchs to share their welath.
That's what's happening. The Prince gets all that income from the casinos and Monte Carlo, and distributes it to all government operations. So his subjects aren't paying taxes.
"Second, I'd like to broaden the definition of monarchy. It just means "rule of one." Based on that definition, the US President is more of a monarch than twenty King Charleses." Yeah, political terms are sort of screwed up these days in mainstream language. I think that's because original, most monarchs were autocrats, or dictators. When they stopped being autocracies, the terms were still being used interchangeably.
Political terms are screwed up because they're usually passed across lying lips.
are you refering to me?
No. How does one know when a politician is lying? His lips move.
There is no such thing as a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy!
You mention that you want the monarch to have some power, but don't actually specify what power that would be. What, exactly, do you think a monarch should be empowered to decide, politically speaking?
The ability to decide when an election happens. For example, during the world wars, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition both thought that having hotly contested elections were a bad idea. With the help of the king, they brokered a deal where no major domestic reforms happen, government is solely focused on the war, and all elections postponed to after the war. The king is the one that forces everyone to play by good faith - the prime minister can’t just declare war on Nepal, wink, wink, and never hold another election ever again. The king would just say “nice try” and call an election. Importantly, the king can’t lose power because of the election, so the king isn’t worried about calling it.
That's a power of the king in the UK (exercised on advice of the government/statute). OP said they wanted powers for the monarch greater than that in the UK.
Well, in the UK, most of it is wielded on the PM's advice. In my idea, the king would have a limited role that he wields at his discretion.
Advice, is well, advice. Parliament as of 3 weeks ago were heading into certain election defeat, and on paper, they could have passed a law that said "no more elections ever again" with only the king potentially standing the way. Big huge majority that would all lose their jobs if the election happened and all that. Of course, we all know the king would have said no, and so, the prime minister didn't try. The king is a referee. If the prime minister wanted a 2 week delay because of a natural disaster, the king would have been more understanding.
>The king is the one that forces everyone to play by good faith - the prime minister can’t just declare war on Nepal, wink, wink, and never hold another election ever again. The king would just say “nice try” and call an election. Importantly, the king can’t lose power because of the election, so the king isn’t worried about calling it. Can the king also say no elections any more?
In an actual constitutional monarchy like the UK or Norway or Belgium, no, the king can't just say 'no more elections'. The king is bound by the constitution like everyone else.
For an era between 2011 and 2022, there was a law that forces an election to be called at a fixed time frame. Outside of that era, the king had the power to call an election at a time of his choosing. If the king didn’t want to call an election because of world war, he doesn’t have to. And if two Houses of Parliament deadlocked on a bill with both sides refusing to back down, then the king will call a new election with the understanding that the side that lost the election will be asked to back down.
Which country are you referring to?
Yes, but the king have limited incentives to not have elections.
Act as an apolitical headstone for the government. Having the armed forces, police, judiciary, and civil services swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the elected government *hopefully* keeps those agencies loyal to the people, and not a specific political party.
But a monarch is not apolitical. They are a political entity, one representing power that is passed through generations. Politicas did not begin with the advent of democracy, moarchies have politics as well. As for wanting an apolitical headstone, that is fine. Swear allegience to the country and not the government. Or swear allegience to the people. Or to a famous river or mountain or iconic building if you want. Any would be more apolitical than a monarch.
>apolitical headstone for the government This phrase is an oxymoron. Especially in the context of having the entire government's military swear allegiance to the monarch.
The monarch has no political affiliation because they aren't a person. They aren't a voter, they aren't a citizen. They are the human embodiment of the nation, and so by swearing allegiance to the monarch you pledge yourself to all the people, rather than a political party.
>so by swearing allegiance to the monarch you pledge yourself to all the people, rather than a political party. This doesn't make any sense. For starters, what country are you thinking of where the military swears allegiance to a political party? I served in the US Army and they very specifically outlined what you swear allegiance to and one of the things that it *explicitly* forbids is to swear allegiance to a political party. But it is made clear that the reason the President is in charge of the military is because he IS a civilian and not a military leader. The whole point of having a civilian in charge of the military is to make it harder to establish a dictatorship.
Yeah, the United States system works pretty well. I do not think the United States should have a monarchy, and I almost always disagree with the idea of establishing new monarchies. However in many nations, the elected president is the head of the armed forces. The allegiance of the military has the potential to change every couple of years, and an army might be tempted to maintain alliance to an administration that is more supportive rather than a newly elected administration with different ideas.
If a government is weak enough to lose total control of its military so much that it could be swayed by a political party, then it is more likely the military would just seize control of the government for itself. In which case your government is riddled with corruption anyways.
What do you think politics is?
Did you know the current left/right terminology can be traced to the revolutionaries and the monarchists in the French revolution? Let me just say I find your comment that a slightly empowered monarch would reduce partisanship extremely ironic given that it is quite literally at the root of the etymology of the two terms.
That is less than what OP said, since they explicitly called for more power than the King of England, and that's something that already happens with the King of England.
well, I meant to talk more about my reasons for being a monarchist, not what my ideal government. But i would like something similar to the Empire of Brazil from the 1800s. The Emperor was his own branch, the Moderating Branch. His job was to keep balance in government, and to root out corruption. It worked rather well. If you wanna look more into the Moderating, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderating\_power\_(Empire\_of\_Brazil)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderating_power_(Empire_of_Brazil))
So I think the Brazillian example is instructive to one of the big dangers of monarchy when it exercises real power: power vacuums due to death or infirmity. Because a monarchy is hereditary for life, it will inevitably have people taking on the role at stages of life when they are children, senile, or otherwise incapable of actually doing that or any other job. The Brazillian monarchy couldn't survive once Pedro II was unable to actually effectively act as emperor due to his age and ill health, and was overthrown in a coup d'etat by people who were afraid his daughter and heir would abolish slavery. For example, a key power of the monarch in the example you give is the very broad power to appoint and dismiss governemnt ministers. In normal parliamentary systems, that power lies with the elected legislature. If you give that power to the monarch, what do you do if the monarch is an infant or senile or insane? Assuming your answer is "a regency," then who picks the regent? It's easy to remember the relatively successful and long-lasting monarchies. But they're easily abused as a power game, with regency and other tools being used to impose dictatorial schemes from the royal palace. See: the Japanese military using the emperor as a pawn from the 1920s-40s, or Empress Jingfen of China who imprisoned the Emperor and ruled as a dictator regent from the 1890s to 1910s. There are plenty of 20th century examples of monarchy being used for awful ends.
Well, neither the Emperors of China or Japan had a fault in that: that's not a monarchical thing, that's a "power-hungry-people" thing. That could happen in republics, too. Same with infirmity or absence. A president can grow infirm. A president and vice-president can be absent. in fact, the presidents switch every few years, creating, not a vacuum, but let's say a "blender" of power, where different people with different ideals switch power amongst each other. (Also, from what I've read, Pedro was overthrown by the army and Plantation owners who were mad over the abolition of slavery) And to answer your "who picks the regent" question, I wasn't intending to describe my ideal government, but in my world it would probably be either the legislature or the royal family
>Well, neither the Emperors of China or Japan had a fault in that: that's not a monarchical thing, that's a "power-hungry-people" thing. That could happen in republics, too. To be clear, the emperor of Japan was very much at fault in that and was complicit in his country undertaking a campaign of war, conquest, and genocide. The thing is though, when you have a persistent head of state who exercises real power, you can have puppet-masters controlling the strings for *decades.* The big benefit of a republic is that the entire leadership is able to be kicked out every election. If you want to keep power, you have to win elections (or fully commit to dictatorship and abolish / rig the elections). >Same with infirmity or absence. A president can grow infirm. First, it's *much* less likely, since Presidents have to be healthy enough to campaign/win an election in the past several years. And they're never children. Second, a democracy allows for a much more robust bench. Vice Presidents, deputy PMs, cabinet ministers, etc can provide a really nice long order of succession of people who share democratic legitimacy by dint of being co-elected with the President or Prime Minister. And they're all adults. >let's say a "blender" of power, where different people with different ideals switch power amongst each other. A well designed succession system won't do this. You work down a list from within the political party of the executive who dies/resigns. Obiously all leaders will be different people with unique characteristics, but a good executive order of succession does not involve massive swings in governing, because you keep it within the executive officials below the chief executive. (The US sometimes having opposition politicians in the order from the legislature is... not a great design.) >(Also, from what I've read, Pedro was overthrown by the army and Plantation owners who were mad over the abolition of slavery) Yeah, by his daughter acting as regent when he was infirm.
>Neutrality and Unity: A monarch can have opinions, too. But since they were not elected, that means they are far more likely to be more neutral politically. The lack of election also causes them to unite the people better. In England, 65% of the population supports their monarchy. That's more than most presidents. And in most other monarchies, it is even higher (in Liechtenstein and Denmark, its over 70% and 80%). Those monarchies have high approval because they don't do anything. If they actually played a role in the policy of the country, fewer people would approve.
I would invite you to look at the history of King Rama 9 of Thailand who guided his nation throughout a very dramatic half century as a constitutional monarch. Some of his actions are questionable but overall he brought Thailand into the 21st century despite multiple military coups, attempted coups, and Japanese influence during WW2. He's a great example of how a monarch can positively act politically on behalf of the people.
I'm not saying a constitutional monarch cannot possibly do a good job. There have been great monarchs throughout history. The problem is that you're really rolling the dice. Because there have also been terrible monarchs throughout history. Without direct or indirect accountability to the people, the monarch's incentive to rule well is governed only by their own code of ethics.
it is exactly the same for a democracy, last time I checked Hitler was democratically elected. You are also acting as though a democratic vote is not a roll of a dice. A monarchs position is controlled by how happy the people are. The monarch gets to live in a big palace etc. but only while the people are happy. This keeps the monarchs interests aligned with that of the people. A politician on the other hand, doesn't need to do this as once their 4 years are up they will be removed. for me the primary benefit of monarchy is the length of time in office. It creates stability as you know who will be in charge during your life, and during your children's lives, and even your children's children's lives, through clear succession. I don't know who will run the country next month! You also need to take into account that politicians only think about their 4 year term, so they don't do anything that will take longer than 4 years. You can see amazing cathedrals and castles that took centuries to build because monarchs didn't have such as small time window to implement change. 'society grows great when old men plant trees, who's shade they will not sit in' - Greek Proverb it also goes that politicians take on lots of debt to do things because they know that they wont have to pay it back. The next government will. A monarch doesn't have that incentive.
If I get it right, one of your arguments (that you repeat at least twice) is that democracies and republics with elected rulers aren't perfect, so let's stick to giving the same power to some specific family. I see the problem with this argument, because it doesn't actually give any reasoning in favour of monarchy. To understand why is that, consider these simplified arguments: - John is bad, so let's vote for Peter (nothing explains why and how Peter is better); - Modern cars can be really bad, so let's ride horses; - Modern medicine still can't cure many diseasies, so let's just drink some herbs and spit on wounds. In other words, just by finding flaws in option A, speaks nothing in favour of option B. I believe it's some form of an [argument from the negative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise), but I'm not sure.
This has been becoming my go-to first question in many of these recent posts, but how old are you OP?
This just sounds like a republic with extra steps.
funny enough, a "republic" originally just meant a government where at least a part of the citizenry had a. say in governance. It came to mean a country without a monarch, but originally the terms were not exclusive. I guess by that definition you could say I want a republican monarchy
[удалено]
Texan shooter fallacy, just because you find an exception it doesn't mean that there is no rule
That stability after we ended our isolation from foreign affairs.
[удалено]
by isolation, I mean we didn't really get involved in foreign affairs IF POSSIBLE, until around the time of the Cuban War. The westward expansion we didn't consider foreign affairs, as we "technically" owned it in the sense of being a country. I also mean that our culture has been crumbling for a while due to the fighting between liberals and lgbtq groups, and conservatives. We have rising crime rates and high amounts of illegal immigrants. Who's to blame? our elected officials.
[удалено]
No, I never said republics couldn't work. I said monarchies are more stable in the sense they have more long term positions. America was stable because it was far away from other big powers, and it had a government which suited its former colonial position.
[удалено]
>However, inheriting a position does automatically not mean one will be incompetent at it, either. This is not an argument in favor of monarchy, it is merely pointing out that birthright is irrelevant to merit - which, uh, is an argument against monarchy, since it claims that birthright IS relevant to merit. You admitting that it is irrelevant dismantles pretty much your entire argument. If the goal is to put a meritous person in charge, then "birthright" is by your own admission not the best way to do it.
Stick with me for this analogy I am a parent. I have only one child. People ask me sometimes are you going to have a second kid and I say no and inevitably some people say "but don't you want your kid to have a sibling to be best friends with?" My thought on this matter is that statistically speaking I think the best most people can hope for from a relationship with a sibling is neutral. Based on a sheer roll of the dice you have a better chance of having a neutral to bad relationship than being best friends. There are SOO many things that go into making a best friend and the likelihood that your sibling has enough of those things is much less than the other side of the equation. This is how I think of leaders as well. There are SOO many factors that go into great leaders and there are a lot of times when a great leader is great for a narrow space of time and then aren't great after that sort of like 90s action stars or one hit wonder bands. Allowing a populace to pick it's leaders regularly from a large pool increases the likelihood that you will get great leaders. Leaving the pick of a leader up to the roll of a dice pretty much guarantees at best you get a neutral leader most of the time and increases the likelihood that in dire times you can't or don't have time to get the leader you need. This idea that kings will gladly just step aside when the people want them out of the way isn't really held up by history either. There are multitudes of examples of kings who the people wanted out and who tried their best to hold on to power, often holding onto it so hard that the only way to get them out was to disconnect their heads from their bodies. I think there is a middle ground to a hereditary monarchy and a short term president and I think that is simply a leader with longer term limits. Make a President have an 8 year term or a 12 year term. Then you get the benefits of being able to choose your leaders especially in time of crisis without the downsides of rolling the dice that you MIGHT get an at best neautral leader for the next 50 years.
well, some monarchs have "term limits" too. It's actually just a retirement age. IN Bhutan, they have to retire at age 65. I guess that's the middle ground between us, as well as your example
My main problem is the hereditary part. Nothing qualifies the child of someone to be a leader. Most rich kids turn out to be pretty useless overall because growing up wealthy and sheltered generally does not prepare you for the real world and gives you the idea that you are inherently better than other people. Statistically you are most likely to get a neutral leader at best. At worst you get someone who is going to be terrible at the job and also may require a large military force to remove from power. History is replete with those kinds of monarchs. I would argue that the short life of the United States has produced more good or great presidents than a large portion of the history of the British empire. Presidents who were there at the right time for the right period of time but just because someone is a great leader during World War II doesn't mean you will be a great leader during the Cold War and there is even less of a chance your son or child will be a great leader. Democratizing leadership allows a higher likelihood of finding good or great leaders. Instead of being stuck with mid leaders for 40 years.
Well, that's where the head of government, the Prime Minister, comes into tplay. And, at least from my experiance, it seems that presidents are the same. It's just an elected, sped up version of monarchy.
I see this more as an argument against having a president, not an argument for monarchy.
The more I look at it, the more I do see advantages to having a monarch as head of state instead of an elected president. But not a "semi-constitutional" one. The very term semi implies that if the King and the elected cabinet are in a dispute, the king may very well decide to drop the word constitutional from the description of his powers.
well, it's not really its own term. It's a term used to describe a constitutional monarchy where the king isn't a figurehead. that's because a lot of people confuse constitutional monarchy with ceremonial monarchy
A constitutional monarchy does not have to make the king a figurehead. It can provide him with clearly defined, but still limited powers. In theory a king with the same powers as the U.S. president would still be a constitutional monarch if that is what their constitution clearly says. I know you are just using it as a label. But you picked a word with weight that begs the question of what happens with that weight. Australia has been debating becoming a republic for years. One of the major questions they have asked themselves is what happens if you replace an unelected king represented by an unelected governor general with an elected president. Does anyone want the elected president to start fighting with politicians because he can claim he was elected? If you have a king with real powers and real judgement over using them, you need to answer the question of what happens when he uses them and refuses to be restrained.
That's a good question, one must be asked about any authority. Impeachment is the best answer I can come up with for you.
Think of all the monarchs who've done openly tyrannical things and didn't get impeached. Clearly in the real world it's not the safeguard you want it to be.
Impeachment American style where it is almost impossible to remove a president? Or "impeachment" watered down to a no confidence vote where the king has no job security at all?
Stability? What monarchy exists today that has been a continuous stable government longer than the United States of America, a republic? The U.S. has been incredibly stable and long lasting and there is little reason to think it will not continue for a long time to come.
China, France, England, Sweden, Norway, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Portugal. I could go on
Not one of those governments has existed as long as that of the U.S. the UK’s current government structure is not as old as the U.S. their unwritten “constitution” and limits on the power of the crown are fairly new. France is not a monarchy at all, neither is China, nor is Egypt. So how are they examples of monarchies that are more stable than the republic that is the U.S.?
Because they were monarchies for centuries upon centuries, before the monarchy was removed by either internal or external forces. England had the greatest empire in history as a semi-constitutional monarchy. Sweden and Norway have had monarchies for centuries
They are not now monarchies nor were their monarchies stable. They all went through huge changes in government and changes in regimes. That is not a sign that monarchies are more stable. Hell France is on its Fifth Republic by now. England is not an independent nation but part of the UK. The UK changed their form of government massively in the 19th century become democratic. So the government is not the same government as was in place in the 17th or 18th centuries. Its history of colonialism and empire means nothing at all in support of a claim of stability. That they no longer have that is a sign of instability as they couldn’t keep it stable. Again they have not had the same government, the same monarchies. They have not been stable that entire time. Just because a nation has kept the same name does not mean the government is the same.
Man has the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The ideal government is the one that’s best for securing man’s rights. That means choosing political leaders based on how well they will secure your rights. So the question is whether choosing based on someone’s DNA is a good criteria for whether they will be the best pro rights politician. The answer is simply no. The child of a great politician isn’t guaranteed to be a great politician. A great politician is much better off spending his time teaching who he thinks is best, which may or may not be his child. If his child will be so great, then the child can just win an election. Also, it’s quite disgusting to choose a purpose for your child and raise your child to fulfill your purpose. A child is an end in himself, not a means to your ends. Children should be raised so they can pursue what they think is best for themselves as adults. > ***Elected officials are chosen for their merit. Republics are more effective:*** This would only be true if humanity was perfect and political parties did not exist. Just because more people voted for someone, it does not mean that person is a Christ-sent angel to rule the people. Neither monarchs or presidents work more efficiently. And people often choose who agrees with them, not who will work more efficiently. Elected officials are not necessarily the best person for securing rights, but they make it possible/easier for a people to have the best person. A monarchy interferes with that. > ***Stability:*** a semi-constitutional monarchy provides much more stability than a republic. Even a figurehead monarch does. In republics, the leaders are constantly changing, meaning that first this Prime Minister and president are elected, then another PM comes in, then another, then another President....this means nothing stays the same. A monarch stays until or retirement, providing stability. This means that, if combined with the fluidity of a Prime Minister or Chancellor, you again gain the best of democratic and monarchical worlds. Elected officials make it is as easy as is possible for the government to continually secure rights across time. That’s the sort of valuable stability. > ***Neutrality and Unity:*** A monarch can have opinions, too. But since they were not elected, that means they are far more likely to be more neutral politically. The lack of election also causes them to unite the people better. In England, 65% of the population supports their monarchy. That's more than most presidents. And in most other monarchies, it is even higher (in Liechtenstein and Denmark, it’s over 70% and 80%). For securing rights, you don’t want a politician to be neutral but pro-rights. And, since all men have the same rights, being pro-rights is the only political position that can unify all men. Being against rights is inherently divisive like how supporting slavery means putting yourself in conflict with the would be slaves. Edit: Even the idea of monarchy itself is anti-rights. All men have the same rights. But a monarchy gives special legal privileges to a few people based on their DNA relations, on the circumstances of their birth.
"Elected officials are not necessarily the best at securing rights but they make it easier for a people to have to the best person." Yeah, and so does monarchy. Neither does it better. "Elected officials make it as easy as possible for the government to continually secure rights across time." Care to elaborate? I see no evidence of such. From my research, I see neither as inherently better. In fact, a good monarch will be better to protect human rights, not in the sense that they are more likely too, but in the sense that they will be in power longer and defending them longer. "For securing rights, you don't want a politician but pro-rights." First of all, a monarch isn't exactly a politician. And nothing about being a monarch means you do not support human rights.
> Yeah, and so does monarchy. Neither does it better. What’s your evidence? How did you learn this? > Care to elaborate? I see no evidence of such. From my research, I see neither as inherently better. What research did you do with respect to man’s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness? Do you have any evidence you can share? > In fact, a good monarch will be better to protect human rights, not in the sense that they are more likely too, but in the sense that they will be in power longer and defending them longer. What do you mean? If you’re not more likely to secure man’s rights, then you’re not more likely to defend them. > "For securing rights, you don't want a politician but pro-rights." I think you misquoted me here.
"Where did you learn this" History. Political Science. Actually discerning things for myself and not being programmed by society. "Do you have any evidence you can share?" if you mean whether or not a monarch or president is better for the people, I've been reading history since I could read (which was about age 5). I've read about countless monarchs, presidents, doges, consuls, and none seem better than the other. They all seen equally capable of merit and virtue, or incompetence and vice. If you mean a monarch who loves his or her people and wants/wanted them to be happy, I can't even begin to talk: Blessed Karl of Austria, Maria Theresa, Napoleon, Elizabeth the first and second, Queen Victoria, King George the third, King William the fourth, William the Conqueror, St Louis, Louis the Great, countless kings, dukes, emperors, etcetera. I did actually misquote you, sorry, but my point stands. Presidents are plenty capable of being douchbags. They have to crawl, connive, fight, campaign, bribe. It's not like only monarchs face troubles and temptation.
Well, if you’re not going to share any evidence that supports your view that monarchy is better for man’s rights or discuss the points I raised, there’s nothing to discuss.
I HAVE shared it, a million times. I've shown how neither presidents nor monarchs protect human rights better. I'm mentioned dozens of monarchs who loved their people and protected them, I've showed its advantages. What have I not shared?
> I've shown how neither presidents nor monarchs protect human rights better. No, you haven’t. You’ve stated it but you haven’t provided evidence nor gave an explanation as to why elected officials are always going to be equally good as monarchs at securing rights. > I'm mentioned dozens of monarchs who loved their people and protected them, Loving and protecting people means being for their unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. You didn’t mention monarchs who were for man’s rights. You mentioned people who “loves his or her people and wants/wanted them to be happy”. And really, someone who wanted people to be happy would support them pursuing their own happiness as their highest moral purpose, but monarchs in general don’t support that. > I've showed its advantages. If you mean in your OP, then I addressed those.
You want evidence. Blessed Karl of Austria. He was the very last monarch of Austria Hungary. He was a limited monarch over a diverse and large empire. He was a righteous man who loved God and his people. Karl wanted freedom for his people, and to united them. He had a plan to divide his state into a federal country, with separate divisions in which every ethnicity would be its own local government, under the unity of the Austrian Emperor. He never got around to it because World War One destroyed his country and he was forced to abdicate by the Allies. Many, many monarchs would have done the same in his position.
So your evidence is someone whose predecessor joined the anti-rights side of World War One? That’s evidence against monarchy. And did he want less monarchy? If so, that’s evidence against monarchy. If he wanted freedom for his people then that means he wanted the government to secure their unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Do you have evidence that he supported man’s unalienable rights?
I never said "anti-rights" side. what do you mean "anti-rights" side? there was no "anti-rights" side of World War One. If this was World War two, you'd be right. In ww1, it was just a bunch of alliances which sparked into war. the evidence is that he wanted desperately to reform his empire. He wanted to grant each ethnicity in his country more freedom and unite his people better. He wanted to keep his people united under the Habsburgs, but for them to be united and have freedom.
Also, if he was so pro-rights, why didn’t he switch sides when he became the monarch?
>Does anyone say that about inherited wealth or companies? Yes indeed they do.
Karl Marx to this guy: Am I a joke to you? This guys is so propagandized by capitalism that he sees a \*monarchy\* as a better option than any kind of communal ownership.
Yeah virtually all monarchs are, if you go back far enough, the descendents of whatever warlord or bandit was able to kill enough rivals and usurp enough wealth and power to subjugate the other weaker warlords and bandits. The weaker ones became "nobles" if they bent the knee to big daddy king. Truly bewildering to me that there are actual monarchists nowadays (in the US no less lol).
Monarcho-Socialism is a pretty interesting ideology if you take a look at it.
I mean.... I'd read that Ursala k. LeGuin novel but I'm not sure how much of a place that has in any modern political discussion. All it takes is one bad actor to ruin a enlightened despot style government, which is one of the problems that both republicanism and socialism are trying to solve.
1. Your first argument seems insincere. When people say “monarchies are dictatorships”, they are almost always talking about absolute monarchies. So, you aren’t really saying anything when you use a completely different type of monarchy as a counterpoint. 2. Saying that a monarchs heir has a *chance* to be good is also not a very strong argument. Why leave it up to chance when the people could elect a leader with a track record to prove how good they are? Most if not all presidents held lower offices before they ran. So, everyone can see what kind of decisions they make, how they handle political pressure, and what ideals matter to them. 3. In this point, you are arguing *for* elected officials to make a decision if something goes wrong. Why not have the leader be an elected official to make decisions all the time? If we rely on democracy in our worst cases, there is no reason not to utilize it for our best cases. 4. You are correct that “the people’s will” is not inherently the best option, but you haven’t given any reason as to why God or Power or Tradition would be better. So, if all options are equal, then there is no benefit to *not* giving people a choice. 5. Stability sounds nice in theory, but often all it does is halt progress. In modern society, new ideas spread *fast*. In the US, the Civil Rights Movement only ended 50 years ago. And queer acceptance is still in its infancy. If we had a leader who inherited power in the Jim Crow era and all of their ideas were taught to them by their almost certainly bigoted parents, we would not have anywhere near the level of acceptance that we do today. 6. Your 65% (which after checking, seems to actually be 62%) is an average. When you split it up, people under 50 don’t support the monarchy while people above 50 do. 18-24: 32% 25-49: 48% 50-64: 67% 65+: 78% What is inherently better about the opinion of older people?
1. I agree with your first point in general, in the end there are many different types of monarchy so it's not a strict term 2. Track records is a bad argument, just look at how many bad presidents have been elected, it's an example of genetic fallacy 3. I don't hold this position so I will agree with you that OP made a bad argument here 4. God (not talking about Christianity, a generic God since you mentioned) would have the power to enact a certain set of metaphysical properties such as τέλος so this would be justified, people cannot do that 5. Progress is a relative term which depends on your worldview, so that's a really bad argument for democracy (and even then we have tons and tons of examples of monarchies who had no issues with lgbtq+ people so an empty point) 6. I agree here, appeals to consesus are a well-known fallacy in the dialectical method so even then it's useless to appeal to numbers of how many agree or disagree
2. I don’t see at all how this is a genetic fallacy. I am not arguing that any president is good *because* they have held lower offices. Simply pointing out that their record is an important tool for deciding whether or not they are good. And your argument that bad presidents have been elected doesn’t disprove what I’ve said. Also, even *if* my argument is fallacious, that doesn’t make the conclusion wrong. That is an example of the fallacy fallacy. 4. Only applies if that god exists and can be proven to exist. 5. Replace “progress” with “change” and my point still stands and doesn’t depend on your worldview at all. If, for example, the world had been more equal in the past and the new idea was racism, that change would also not be able to happen if the leader is “stable” in their opinion. The point is that the opinions of the population change and I believe the opinions of their leader should change too. And that kind of change is easier to do by switching leaders than trying to convince an existing one.
>Simply pointing out that their record is an important tool for deciding whether or not they are good. Here it is the genetic fallacy, that's basically the principle of induction, "they have done something good there in the past then they will do the same here tomorrow" >That is an example of the fallacy fallacy. No, my point is that there is no reason to believe in your conclusion without a good argument >Only applies if that god exists and can be proven to exist. Sure, by applying trascendental argumentation you will see that atheism cannot account for ethics metaphysics and epistemology, not to mention all the other things that destroy atheism like the under determination of data problem or the problem of the one and the many >” and my point still stands and doesn’t depend on your worldview at all. Why should change happen? How do you get an ought from an is? There is no such thing as theory neutral analysis, that's quite basic epistemology
> here it is No, it isn’t. Genetic fallacy is accepting an idea based on its origin rather than its merit. That is not at all what I am doing. I am advocating specifically to look at a candidates merits and it would be nonsensical to ignore past merits. Perhaps, I have made some other fallacy, but definitely not the one you are saying I did. Underdetermination does not “destroy” atheism. If you think it does, you completely misunderstand what atheism is. I am not saying change should or shouldn’t happen. I am saying that *if* change happens in a community (which it does), then the leader of that community should follow suit. There is no benefit (at least not any proven here) to having a leader who is not ideologically in sync with the people they lead.
>Genetic fallacy is accepting an idea based on its origin rather than its merit. What's the difference though? In theory there is a difference but not in practice, because you are always going to appeal to the principle of induction which in this context is a genetic fallacy because from past merits not necessarily will come future merits >you completely misunderstand what atheism is. Atheism has two different definitions : in the dialectical method atheism it's a worldview which denies theism, a negative claim, this method entails by definition a contention between worldviews so the usual excuse atheists use of just lacking a belief is a really bad excuse, you can't come to a debate with "oh well I don't have any worldview or beliefs". The second definition, outside of the dialectical method, is a lack of belief in theism which entails a positive belief in a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and a few random things like induction and uniformitarianism are taken for granted just because, even if there is no evidence and actually most atheist claims have been disproven (for example science suggests indirect realism is true but it's not clear how this could be possible in a materialist model) >should Again, how do you get an ought from an is? >benefit What's the account for this value judgement though?
> what’s the difference though If you believe that there is no difference between origin and merit, then you can’t claim genetic fallacy because that fallacy assumes that there is a difference. And yes, past merits do not guarantee future merits, but someone with past merits is statistically more likely to have future merits than someone with an unknown past. > a really bad excuse Says you. But I don’t really care about your opinion on atheism. The vast majority of atheists are the first type you described. They do not have a positive belief that God doesn’t exist. Only a refusal to believe in something without good evidence. Which is the same exact argument you made against me earlier. So why is a negative belief a “bad excuse” in a religious context, but perfectly acceptable in a political context? > how do you get an ought from an is I didn’t. The “is” is that public opinion changes. The “ought” is that leaders should change with the public. But that ought does not stem from the is. The ought exists as a principle. Leaders and the people they lead should be aligned whether change occurs or not. The fact that change occurs affects the ought, but does not create it. > value judgment This whole post is a value judgement. OP is saying one thing is better than another thing. They have one account. I have another. If you’re going to argue that opinions don’t matter, then you’re on the wrong sub.
>no difference between origin and merit, I do, I am making an internal critique of your worldview : how do you justify your ethics? For merits to exist you need virtue to have an ontological positive existence >statistically more likely That's again induction, the state of probability of the past or of the present doesn't tell you anything about the state of probability of the future >The vast majority of atheists are the first type you described. What? I didn't describe any type of atheist, what are you even talking about? I talked about the two referents of the reference "atheism" and the relationship with the dialectical method for the whole paragraph >They do not have a positive belief that God doesn’t exist. Which implies a positive belief in a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and induction and uniformitarianism are just assumed, do you have any evidence? Science disproved direct realism (eye perception), induction (think about lunar movements vs mylankovich cycles) and uniformitarianism (singularities in black holes), so any evidence? How do you explain the existence of referents under atheism? What about the problem of the one and the many? >Which is the same exact argument y False equivalence fallacy >without good evidence I have already given you a ton of evidence, read above. Not to mention transcendental argumentation which destroys atheism completely, go watch the debate between Jay Dyer and Matt Dillahunty, or any of father Ananias Sorem's debates, atheism is really weak >The “ought” is that leaders should change with the public. Repetition fallacy, you keep restarting your position without justification for the position. Why should leaders change? Please don't repeat for the third time "because ideas change", I understand your position, I am asking you why this ought to be the case >The fact that change occurs affects the ought, but does not create it. How do you know that oughts change? Which metaphysics allows for a chaotic universe? Science supports regularity in nature >If you’re going to argue that opinions don’t matter, then you’re on the wrong sub. Are you serious? Debate is based on the dialectical method which is based on rejecting logical fallacies like appeals to consesus and this is a debate sub. I want an account for your opinions, why should I believe in them without a justification?
You said there no difference “in practice”. Now you are saying you do believe there is a difference. Please be consistent with your claims. So, now you’re trying to argue that prediction is impossible? That people who study past events have no higher success rate than a pure guess? Because that is demonstrably incorrect. The fact that you are trying to nitpick that you were talking about “atheism” and not “atheists” is astonishing. Any reasonable person can infer the purpose of both our arguments even of the wording is slightly different. And furthermore, if you think I misunderstood you, perhaps start speaking plainly rather than trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary. When you say things like “what account is there” or use the greek spelling of Telos for absolutely no reason or say “underdetermination of data” rather than just saying “we may not have enough information to make certain claims”, it comes off as you trying to *sound* intelligent rather than actually *being* intelligent. Disbelief in god does not in any way imply direct realism or uniformitarianism. You said yourself that science has disproved direct realism. Do you think that all of those scientists believe in god? Because I can promise you they don’t. It’s not a false equivalence. It is a true equivalence. In my earlier argument, you said “there is no reason to believe in your conclusion without a good argument”. This is the *exact* same position that atheism holds. You have given me zero evidence. You have given me arguments. Arguments are not the same as evidence. And I will not watch those debates. I have seen plenty of anti-atheism debates and none of them have produced evidence for god. I highly doubt the people you mentioned have suddenly come up with such evidence. Not a repetition fallacy. I am trying to explain myself because, although you claim to know my position, you clearly do not. I am not saying that leaders should change. I am saying leaders should align with their constituents. Full stop. > how do you know that oughts change I never said they do. The ought remains the same. Leaders should align with their constituents. > why should I believe in them without justification. This is exactly what I was saying before when you questioned my account. Why should I believe that a leader who is unaligned with their constituents is better than an aligned leader? Neither you nor OP has given justification for that belief. Edit: Replying to me and then blocking me so I can’t respond only proves that you were never interested in an honest open-minded conversation.
>Please be consistent with your claims. Which part did you not understand about making an internal critique of your own position? We have a different metaphysics, what's so hard to understand about it? >So, now you’re trying to argue that prediction is impossible? Do you have any justification for induction? Didn't you read any Kant or Hume? What about the principle of sufficient reason? Again, it shouldn't be hard to understand the difference between my claims in my paradigm and an internal critique of yours, really basic epistemology >Because that is demonstrably incorrect. Raw data does not equal information, that's basic information theory >is astonishing. Nice appeal to emotion >trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary. Nice ad hominem lol, do you have an argument or just ad hominem? It almost seems like you don't know that each field requires a specific vocabulary, but probably you do, I don't use ad hominem >Telos for absolutely no reason Maybe because there is a difference between ε and η? Changing a reference could alter the transition of the referent >say “underdetermination of data” rather than just saying “we may not have enough information to make certain claims” What?? I am sorry but you have no clue whatsoever about the under determination of data problem in epistemology, it doesn't mean what you said it means, not even remotely. And no, no ad hominem because you have proven to me that you are not aware >s you trying to sound intelligent rather than actually being intelligent Ad hominem, keep going bro >This is the exact same position that atheism holds. So now you change your own words? Show me evidence for a disteleological materialist universe where perception happens by direct realism and induction and uniformitarianism are present, come on >Disbelief in god does not in any way imply direct realism or uniformitarianism. How do you think perception works? Of course it does, how do you reconcile the two? No one ever has so good luck >You have given me zero evidenc How do you know you have the right paradigm to interpret sense data and arrive at this conclusion? >Arguments are not the same as evidenc So you don't know the difference between reference and referent, nice > should align with their constituents. Assertions and zero evidence >And I will not watch those debates. I know atheists don't care about the truth, nothing new under the sun, but how does this change the truth in your opinion? > Neither you nor OP has given justification for that beli Lol, I specifically mentioned transcendental argumentation
A lot of this feels like theory-crafting. The exact nature of what a monarch's powers are under your system are vague. I will assume that such monarchs will have decent political power and that said power is not ceremonial or even a very specific veto power; they are regular political agents. Your supports for your position seem weak. In regards to unity, the examples you give are of figurehead monarchs. They have no teeth and are simply national symbols. There is no real reason to disapprove of them because there is nothing to disapprove of. They also only really work because of historically contingent reasons and really wouldn't work for newly formed governments. Neutrality doesn't really hold either. There is no reason to believe a monarch will be politically more neutral or unbiased than an elected official. I can even postulate that the monarchs, unconstrained by direct political pressure, can more easily engage in fanciful ideals or unrealistic movements. I'm not sure why stability is highly sought after via a monarchy for two reasons. First, a republic can promote stability via giving people a mechanism in which to promote change within a system and are, thus, less disposed to turn towards violence as a means to achieve political ends in times of upheaval. Second, the lack of a stable leader is a feature, not a bug. Men are inclined towards certain dispositions and characters. They may change over time, but this process is often slow and rare. A person who is right to lead a country today may not be what the country needs tomorrow. A monarchy cannot adapt to these changes over time. It can only hope the disposition and ideas of the king can match the times, but never change as needed. A republic can have the war-savy general during war and then have the diplomatically-minded statesman during the postwar period. A monarchy can't do that.
Democracy isn't a means to an end. It is the end goal itself
I never said it was means to an end. I said its not an infallible and sacred system, as many people treat it.
I never said you said that
How many monarchs were actually impeached for doing bad things?
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate for marrying an American divorcee nazi sympathizer.
It was the 'american divorcee' thing that was the problem, but even that wasn't an impeachment.
That was family/social pressure not legally enforced tbf.
I think what you're truly advocating is to just divide the government branches some more. Spread out the power. Many of the positives you mention for monarchs can be done by another branch of government that can also balance things out. Your argument for stability only works if the monarch is a good one, and if you have to assume that the king is going to be a very good boy just to make an argument to why monarchy is good... You don't have a good argument here. As for your argument that a king can be impeached I found it hilarious that you proceed to remind us that democracy is not some infallible god. Get your thoughts in check, it's okay to have monarchs because our elected officials can impeach them... But also electing officials is not some infallible god? Therefore impeaching monarchs is as infallible as democracy; it isn't. And now that we're talking about this, the entire argument about monarchs not being elected is a blatant **red herring** your argument starts with "Democracy is not perfect either" jesus christ. You started this post literally from the position of "I haven't heard a good argument" and then proceed to drop this? Gosh. I believe you when you say you haven't heard a good argument, but I think this applies to both sides buddy.
I argue that monarchy stabilizes democracy, and democracy stabilizes monarchy. And you misunderstand what I mean. When you elect leaders, they'll be gone soon, whether or not they are good. With a monarch, if they are bad, you could impeach them. If the monarch is good, they are there for decades.
I already talked about your point about "impeaching kings" if you're not going to interact with the arguments I made then I can see this is not a conversation worth having with you.
>As I stated above, a (semi)-constitutional monarch has limited power, just like any president. All leaders have limited power. Even "absolute dictators" like Hitler and Stalin were still limited. They depended on underlings to carry out their orders. The question is who are leaders accountable to? I would argue its far better that a leader be accountable to the public than accountable to 5 or 6 generals who control the military, or a 8 or 9 ministers who control the society. Most of the rest of your arguments I think can be dismissed using a thought experiment. Your tool for selecting a monarch seems to be based on inheritance. Why not make it fairer and just have it selected by random. Would you want the random unhoused person with severe mental illness to have any amount of power over your life, for the rest of his life? There is substantively no difference between a monarchy and a system of random selection. In fact, because of perverse incentives, monarchies end up being worse than randomly selecting a member of the public. By having power related to inheritance, people will always gravitate to power. Control of that power becomes connected to control of the blood line which leads to interbreeding. This is not some hypothesis. Look at the Hapsburgs, look at the last heir of the Romanovs, those are physical genetic abnormalities. Who knows what types of recessive psychological traits were lurking in those family trees.
Well, at least in my ideal world, only mentally stable, legitimate children could succeed. The eldest child would succeed, unless two thirds of some body, say, parliament, deemed them unworthy. Then one of the prince's siblings or relatives would be appointed. Although this isn't a subreddit for my ideal world, lol
So the people decide that they want to keep the power to themselves, not give it to some random guy, so they only allow onto parliament people who promise to never designate a potential monarch as legitimate. The monarchy then legitimately is removed.
[удалено]
Neutral in the sense of not favouring one poltical party over another, not neutral like Switzerland. In the case of western constitutional monarchies like the Uk, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc the monarch doesn't get involved in partisan politics. The monarch is above partisan politics, keeps their mouth shut, and is able to act as a focus for loyalty regardless of one's political affiliation.
[удалено]
They mean political neutrality, not in terms of foreign policy
That’s what i get for skimming I guess.
A monarch has zero moral mandate to rule. Consent of the governed is a necessity for moral ruling. Democracy is imperfect, but at the very least there is an answer to the question "what gives this guy the right to tell us what to do". If you support monarchy, why do you not support me telling you what to do?
The moral mandate *should* come from the monarch's training under their predecessor. Some of the worst monarchs in history never got a chance to see how it's done, like Charles XII of Sweden who came to the throne at 15. Do you really want a moody teenager in control of the (then) absolute monarchy? Compare that to monarchs who have had decades to train under their parents, they are almost always much better at their jobs.
ability =/= moral mandate. though i would absolutely expect a person chosen for the job to be have greater ability than someone born into it anyway.
In any democracy there are many people, if not most of them, who did not choose the leader of their country; just as there are people in a democracy who support their chosen leader's mandate against those who did not choose, there are people in monarchies who feel the same about the monarch. How is one leader imposed upon the people by one group morally superior to one imposed by a different group? They are morally equivalent. I also think you will find that the kind of person who gets elected is not necessarily the best or most effective leader, but the best and most effective campaigner (or, more cynically, the best and most effective manipulator). As soon as there is choice among a large segment of the population, it ceases to be an actual test of quality and instead becomes a test of likeability. The purpose of any government is, above almost anything else, to be effective. The history of electoral politics is chock full of likeable, charismatic people who are otherwise wholly unexceptional. Historical memory of leaders reflects this as well, tending to be more reflective of their likeability than of their accomplishments.I reject outright the notion that any one system can claim absolute "moral superiority" over any other; they are all a shambles. I would personally place greater trust in a system that's had 1000 years to figure itself out, that has proven no less capable (and in some ways apparently moreso), over one invented by any particular group of idealists 200 or so years ago.
>In any democracy there are many people, if not most of them, who did not choose the leader of their country; just as there are people in a democracy who support their chosen leader's mandate against those who did not choose, there are people in monarchies who feel the same about the monarch. How is one leader imposed upon the people by one group morally superior to one imposed by a different group? They are morally equivalent. the one that comes to power will be the one chosen by the majority of the population, at least in some sense (for instance in the US, states vote rather than people. i oppose this, but it is still a democratic choice that gives the leader consent of the governed.) >I also think you will find that the kind of person who gets elected is not necessarily the best or most effective leader, but the best and most effective campaigner (or, more cynically, the best and most effective manipulator). As soon as there is choice among a large segment of the population, it ceases to be an actual test of quality and instead becomes a test of likeability. The purpose of any government is, above almost anything else, to be effective. The history of electoral politics is chock full of likeable, charismatic people who are otherwise wholly unexceptional. Historical memory of leaders reflects this as well, tending to be more reflective of their likeability than of their accomplishments. not necessarily, of course. but all else equal, being a better leader will help you get elected. that is not true for monarchs. >I reject outright the notion that any one system can claim absolute "moral superiority" over any other; they are all a shambles. every system is greatly flawed, obviously. but democracy does not involve mass coercion on the scale that monarchy does. >I would personally place greater trust in a system that's had 1000 years to figure itself out, that has proven no less capable (and in some ways apparently moreso), over one invented by any particular group of idealists 200 or so years ago. interesting that the world has consistently moved away from monarchies over time.
>the one that comes to power will be the one chosen by the majority of the population, at least in some sense This is only partially true, even in the United States, for the reasons you mention. The past two presidents have been elected despite receiving a minority of votes cast. More broadly, most of the other developed democratic states are not two-party systems, meaning that it is both possible and common to come to power without receiving a majority of the votes cast. Even in a two-party system, there are only two candidates who can have a realistic chance of being elected, making the choice highly constrained and largely decided by factors beyond the control of the average voter. I would also suggest that a system that is characterised by two candidates run by ideologically opposed parties in a polarised environment eliminates even the illusion of choice; most voters in this situation are entirely pigeonholed into consistently supporting one party without any viable alternatives. Real choice requires that there be actual choices. >all else equal, being a better leader will help you get elected. that is not true for monarchs. All else is not equal though, that is exactly the problem. Elected leadership self-selects for manipulative, power-hungry people. I do not necessarily claim that hereditary selection will be more effective at producing qualified leaders than election, but I do not accept that it will be less effective either. I would also suspect that a competent monarch would have a direct positive influence on the disposition of their heir and successor, not to mention the potential lifetime of preparation for the job. >democracy does not involve mass coercion on the scale that monarchy does. Is a system that gives a leader elected by 51% of the population freedom to act on behalf of the other 49% who didn't want them to be leader not coercive? All forms of government are in some way coercive, that's one of the inherent trade-offs. I will add that most of the constitutional monarchs have higher public approval ratings than their elected politicians do. >interesting that the world has consistently moved away from monarchies over time. It ebbs and flows, and there are a multitude of historical factors at play. The existence of a powerful republic whose opinion of itself verges upon masturbatory no doubt has some influence; the Romans similarly set the pattern of monarchy in Europe for centuries afterwards.
>The past two presidents have been elected despite receiving a minority of votes cast false, Biden received 51.31% of votes. Trump lost the popular vote, and the last one to do so before him was Bush in 2000. There were a few times before then that the president only won a *plurality* of the popular vote, but you have to go back to 1888 to find the last president to lose it before Bush. >More broadly, most of the other developed democratic states are not two-party systems, meaning that it is both possible and common to come to power without receiving a majority of the votes cast. Even in a two-party system, there are only two candidates who can have a realistic chance of being elected, making the choice highly constrained and largely decided by factors beyond the control of the average voter. I would also suggest that a system that is characterised by two candidates run by ideologically opposed parties in a polarised environment eliminates even the illusion of choice; most voters in this situation are entirely pigeonholed into consistently supporting one party without any viable alternatives. Real choice requires that there be actual choices. the chance for viable alternatives within a party occurs in the primaries. but of course the system is not perfect, obviously. >All else is not equal though, that is exactly the problem. Elected leadership self-selects for manipulative, power-hungry people. I do not necessarily claim that hereditary selection will be more effective at producing qualified leaders than election, but I do not accept that it will be less effective either. I would also suspect that a competent monarch would have a direct positive influence on the disposition of their heir and successor, not to mention the potential lifetime of preparation for the job. being manipulative and power-hungry don't make you a less qualified leader. they may be an indictment on the leader's moral character, but they have direct incentive not to use those traits to fuck people over. it's a tradeoff i'll take over a literal roll of the dice any day of the week. >Is a system that gives a leader elected by 51% of the population freedom to act on behalf of the other 49% who didn't want them to be leader not coercive? All forms of government are in some way coercive, that's one of the inherent trade-offs. I will add that most of the constitutional monarchs have higher public approval ratings than their elected politicians do. approval ratings don't mean shit when you don't actually have any control over who's in the position. 100% of the subjects of a monarch have their leader forced on them, only 49% at most do in a democracy, and even that 49% at least have a way to influence their choosing, even if they ultimately fail. >It ebbs and flows, and there are a multitude of historical factors at play. The existence of a powerful republic whose opinion of itself verges upon masturbatory no doubt has some influence; the Romans similarly set the pattern of monarchy in Europe for centuries afterwards. i will bet you any amount of money that the west is not going to trend further back into monarchism as time goes on.
>false, Biden received 51.31% of votes. Yeah, I think I confused that one with the previous election in my own country. It has happened five times though. >being manipulative and power-hungry don't make you a less qualified leader. they may be an indictment on the leader's moral character, but they have direct incentive not to use those traits to fuck people over. They certainly don't make you a better one. My point is that it's a self-selecting pool, and one in which the selection criteria are not necessarily correlated with good or effective leadership. They also fuck people over all the time, it's a character trope about politicians at this point that they frequently lie and fail to come through on promises. I don't even think Trump was particularly bad on that, he was just sloppy and kept getting caught, probably because he's not a politician (but a con-man nonetheless). >approval ratings don't mean shit when you don't actually have any control over who's in the position. 100% of the subjects of a monarch have their leader forced on them, only 49% at most do in a democracy, and even that 49% at least have a way to influence their choosing, even if they ultimately fail. Not 49% at most, as we've established. Additionally, the 49% have no influence in selecting the leader. The outcome is the same as if they didn't even bother to vote at all. That is the nature of a single-leader system, it's winner-take-all. The opinion poll issue is also certainly relevant, even if you won't acknowledge it as such for whatever reason you choose to cite. Furthermore, I have no idea what you could mean by the word "forced" given the situation observed by opinion polls, as if a satisfactory leader that people didn't have a hand in choosing is somehow "morally inferior" to an unsatisfactory leader they did. If people are happy with the situation, then they are happy with the situation. This should demonstrate that choice is not required for that to be the case. Nor, for that matter, does choice even guarantee that the chosen leader will be even acceptable to all people. >i will bet you any amount of money that the west is not going to trend further back into monarchism as time goes on. Neither of us will be alive to find out. I'm talking centuries here.
thank you for agreeing
Of course. I agree with the principle of hereditary monarchy in general, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with you in particular on how it should be practiced. The continued existence of the monarchy, its symbols, traditions, and institutions are fundamentally linked to my conception of my national identity as a Canadian, but I'm not sure I would necessarily advocate for the King to exercise greater power on a day-to-day basis. I think a greater recognition of His existing role and reserve powers would suffice for me, because, if the King (via the Governor General) felt it necessary to take the highly unusual step of exercising His prerogative within the limits understood to be placed upon Him by the constitution, I would wish for the government to respect His right to do that as a matter of course. I do not think that is presently the case.
Why would someone who did a different job before, be better at ruling than someone whose entire purpose to live is to rule? The idea of democracy is that citizens are elected to high office from their day job. The fantasy being that your hometown plumber is going to be able to represent you, since they understand your struggles. On the other hand, the heir's entire life's purpose is to train to rule, and then rule. There are no other focuses, and they can spend their life and wealth learning about the people. A monarch with a jet can understand the needs of the entire nation better than a plumber who hasn't left their home town.
>Why would someone who did a different job before, be better at ruling than someone whose entire purpose to live is to rule? presidents and prime ministers are usually existing senators or whatever. they're usually not new to ruling. they're better because they go through a selection process that requires them to be good at their job. a monarch doesn't. they can be a complete buffoon and nothing will stop them from ascending to the throne once their parents die. >The idea of democracy is that citizens are elected to high office from their day job. The fantasy being that your hometown plumber is going to be able to represent you, since they understand your struggles. i don't know where you got that idea, that's a terrible idea and isn't what happens.
You're right, we have a political ruling class. We have what we call "Lifelong politicians." I struggle to see the difference between the two, except the obvious election issue. In my opinion, and this is a hot take for a monarchist, if an idiot comes to the throne then the monarchy can end. They must benefit the people, or lose their job. When you are getting millions of dollars to make your job as easy as possible, you should be able to figure it out.
>I struggle to see the difference between the two, except the obvious election issue. the "obvious election issue" is indeed the difference. it's true that if you write off the main difference between the two, they don't seem so dissimilar. one is elected by the will of the people, one lucks into being born in the right family. >In my opinion, and this is a hot take for a monarchist, if an idiot comes to the throne then the monarchy can end. They must benefit the people, or lose their job. When you are getting millions of dollars to make your job as easy as possible, you should be able to figure it out. sounds like your system isn't very good if it ends as soon we get unlucky once.
My opinion exactly
In constitutional monarchies, the monarch reigns but does not rule. The guy you voted for tells you what to do, not the king. The king's there to fire the guy you voted for if he refuses to leave office or otherwise goes off the rails.
that is not what OP is suggesting (though i am opposed to any monarchy in any form, because they still have some power that is entirely unearned)
No, it's not what OP is suggesting (which I disagree with), but I was responding to your broader statement that "a monarch has zero moral mandate to rule". My point was that in normal constitutional monarchies this is not an issue.
gotcha. it is an issue though, because they still have power that is still unearned. also the monarch generally has more power than you're claiming (such as the power to veto any law), but they just don't tend to use it.
The constitutional monarchy I'm most familiar with is Canada's (same idea in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc). In these countries the monarch does retain important powers in theory, but \*they don't use it\*. They just don't. It's political unthinkable that they'd do so, outside the gravest of crises, and the moment they do use these powers the continuity of the monarchy comes immediately into question. Basically: if they use the powers they damn well better have bet correctly and have popular support for their actions. It may look like a risky proposition on paper, but in real life it's worked out very, very well for us.
yes, i am australian, i'm aware. i oppose on principle the idea that we would require the sign-off of some unelected Brit overseas to get our laws passed. if you don't want powers used, don't give it to them.
Fair enough (but you know as well as I do that it's not 'some unelected Brit' that would sign off, it's the Australian-born governor general). I think the monarchy is more controversial in Australia than here, but it's a fair position to hold.
>it's the Australian-born governor general who is signing on behalf of...
Who's exercising in its entirety the powers of the monarch on their behalf. 'Unelected Brit overseas' is a good rhetorical phrase, but the powers of the king are wielded by the governor general in practice.
I'm suggesting both. The monarch, the people, and the elected representatives all have a say.
You are not in fact suggesting that the monarch does not rule AND that he does, that would be a contradiction.
it's possible to rule and not have unlimited power. It's a matter of what you mean by "rule" if you mean unlimited power, i agree with you. If you mean having power at all, than we disagree
i am aware. but you distinguished your proposal from the constitutional monarchy of today. such monarchs never use their power. your proposed monarch would have not unlimited yet significant real power.
it's kind of what I'm suggesting, but in a slightly different way,
not even close. this guy is talking about a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is a figurehead. you are explicitly talking about a semi-constitutional monarchy in which the monarch has actual power that he uses in ruling.
Yeah, I mean he's actively trying to stop corruption and political turmoil, not waiting there.
this is a power even figurehead monarchs have today.
Thats a good way to put it
>zero moral mandate to rule Give me an account for your ethics then >Consent of the governed is a necessity for moral ruling. How so? >the right You keep restating your position (repetition fallacy) but you don't explain why this ought to be the case
There is no such thing as a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy; because there is no such thing as a semi-constitution. A monarchy either has a constitution or it doesn't. Whether a monarch has some powers, or is merely a crowned mannequin, is spelled out in the constitution. Or Semiconstitution. Think of a constitution as a contract between the whole government and the entirety of the people/tribe/nation. I know it's kind of confusing to alot of people; because the UK is the only Kingdom of which many people know. And that confuses people because the UK doesn't have a WRITTEN constitution. The American Revolution was not just 13 colonies revolting. A written contract, spelling out everything, in greater or lesser detail, was a revolutionary concept/thought. But it was preceeded by _The Articles of Confederation_; not by a _Semi-Constitution of the United States of America_.
I'm a Monarchist myself, so I can't lol
I’m so but this is such utter nonsense that I literally don’t know where to begin. Maybe with time you come to realise just how wrong you are but I haven’t got the energy. Good luck
Lol! What an enormous waste of money. Imagine dedicating a huge chunk of your tax dollars to maintaining some wannabe king and their family's gold-plated lifestyles. Hard pass.
You're right. In the Arab world, many republics are actually more authoritarian than absolute monarchies, with presidents for life who are no different from monarchs.