A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[SpaceOrbis]

Okay then, I am beginning this thread on the discussion of Monarchy as a whole. All views are allowed so long as we don't derail. So then, I will begin.

Personally I am a Monarchist, and as one I will defend my view point. Please do make your view obvious, between Monarchist, Monarchist Sympathizer, Neutral, Anti-Monarchist Sympathizer, and Anti-Monarchist.

As I see it there are many good points to Monarchy, such as how it is cheaper to have a monarch than a reoccurring Election, For instance, the Queen barely cost a dime for the British Government, and while yes they still do have elections, it doesn't cost nearly as much as the 6.5 billion USD it cost the United States Government each election.

There is also the fact there is more Stability in the nation. A monarchy goes through less tumultuous periods of changing leaders, as most monarchs live and reign 20-30 years. Not only that, but each one is raised from birth to lead in the modern monarchy. To be upstanding citizens. And while some of which do not do so, (Rama X, for example) most tend to stick to strict morals. Now tell me, who would you prefer, someone taught from birth to lead, or some old guy with Alzheimer's?

Monarchies tend to be more efficient. Instead of two-three days of debate over whether a certain measure can be put in place in a period where time is limited, a monarch can make that call, saving lives well before a elected body can.

While each of my points are good, there are some downsides.

Just because the lines of succession are outlined before they are needed does not guarantee the next ruler will be competent. Some rulers may not even wish to take over their assigned responsibilities. Being born into a specific position is very different than being specifically educated and pursuing a career that can lead an individual into a leadership position. We've seen that recently in the British Monarchy. A prince who didn't want anything to do with monarchy left suddenly after marrying and has since become a bed of controversy.

Although tyranny can form under any structure of government, it is easier to form within the structure of a monarchy. Many governments attempt to balance the powers of a monarchy between multiple groups, but a ruler that is determined to be cruel and unreasonable can dictate that all powers funnel through them. Sometimes referred to as a dictatorship, autocracy, or despotism, great harm can occur when it is present. Mao Zedong, in power for 34 years in China, is responsible for up to 75 million deaths.

While there is more, I will leave that to others to decide on.

The idea of a king or queen to me feels outdated. Unless you're a nation in Europe that has a history of having such I would say no to having one. A proper king or queen is for life. Anything less than total power seems like you playing around. If you want kings and queens to return do it all the way. None of this we have them but they just look nice and don't do anything but fly around making us look good.

Give them power. Otherwise, just keep things as there are.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The idea of a king or queen to me feels outdated. Unless you're a nation in Europe that has a history of having such I would say no to having one. A proper king or queen is for life. Anything less than total power seems like you playing around. If you want kings and queens to return do it all the way. None of this we have them but they just look nice and don't do anything but fly around making us look good.

Give them power. Otherwise, just keep things as there are.

we do have those we call those dictators. We don't like what we see.

 

[bintananth]

I'm going to point out here that Semmelweis' idea was a mere flash in the pan which completely failed to catch on anywhere else in the world. . . because his theory of "cadaverous particles" was factually impossible, and not only could he not provide any scientific explanation for his results, he ultimately became violently paranoid and lashed out violently at anyone who asked him to explain anything.

This was really not a scientific advancement of any sort, it was more, "Doctor stumbled across a method of reducing fever in one specific situation, couldn't explain how or why it actually worked, became crazy shouty man, accused everyone who wanted actual science of being murderers, escalated to the point of being justifiably thrown in an insane asylum."

He was right in that washing your hands is a good idea. He just couldn't explain why to the satisfaction of the powers-that-were and he got punished for it.

 

[LordsFire]

Yeah? There's been quite a few mentioned in this thread. Off the top of my head...

Thailand
Morocco
Swaziland
Brunei
Liechtenstein
Monaco

One can make a reasonable argument for North Korea being a monarchy regardless of how much they stress that they're a democratic people's republic.

...Among that list, Thailand is the only nation that can even qualify as a relevant local power.

Which makes two I'm aware of; Thailand and Saudi Arabia. Every other kingdom is too small or too decrepit to be a player of significance on the world stage, and even Saudi Arabia only exists as something other than an American client state because of our peculiar aversion to actually becoming proper imperialists.

 

[SpaceOrbis]

we do have those we call those dictators. We don't like what we see.

So just keep things as there are then. Kings and queens are so antiquated in a world when we can talk to people half a world way. I have no doubt that when the queen dies England may just opt out of having one. I doubt she has any power anyway so it'll matter.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So just keep things as there are then. Kings and queens are so antiquated in a world when we can talk to people half a world way. I have no doubt that when the queen dies England may just opt out of having one. I doubt she has any power anyway, so it'll matter.

I think most of the power is in the prime minister and parliament.

 

[bintananth]

I think most of the power is in the prime minister and parliament.

Sorta.

The Queen has to ok them before they can do anything and sign off on what they do decide upon.

 

[Yinko]

To summarize, as I am late to the party:

Monarchies tend to be more stable because the life of the monarch and his chief advisers determines the primary length of major policy decisions. The only points of instability are transition periods which occasionally result in challenges to power, or the occasional incompetent monarch. As opposed to the by decennial transition experienced in most democratic societies. Democracies also tend to install far more incompetent leaders on average, though that is a subjective evaluation.

Countries at present with dictators are actually quite pleasant to live in, as an outsider, because the dictator does not care what people do so long as it does not threaten his authority. The worst that will usually happen is deportation. As an insider, you're under a bit more scrutiny because you can fully participate in society.

The historical peasant worker did work less hours and had a very proteinacious diet. (EDIT this is partly to do with the fact that capitalism didn't exist yet, and partly to do with the way that the concept of The State enforces ownership of human labor) They were shorter on average due to fewers calories over-all in relation to their caloric expenditure, but their endurance, strength and physicality were far beyond the average modern man.
The idea that peasants didn't work more because they could not improve their lot in life ignores the facts of history, all the instances of peasants becoming merchants or scholars. It also ignores the current societies where social preconceptions prevent the majority of people from working more than they absolutely need to in order to survive. This is very common in much of the world, especially where social currency is more prized than financial currency. Such as much of the Muslim and Hispanic world.

The main check and balance to the monarch is the estates. The exact layout of what that means changes from culture to culture, but it is, in broad strokes, similar to CGP Grey's analysis of the structure of dictatorships. The subordinates who are keyholders of society. One man cannot rule, one man with a pyramid of allies (all of whom have their own alliances and vested interests) can.
In Europe, this meant that the Nobles, the Church, the Merchants, and the King were all in a constant tug of war to balance power between one another. This is not dissimilar to the current democratic state of affairs, except our current system is far more corrupt.

To the argument that I'm just butt-hurt about the stumbling of the current US political system. I've always been skeptical of democracy.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

To summarize, as I am late to the party:


In Europe, this meant that the Nobles, the Church, the Merchants, and the King were all in a constant tug of war to balance power between one another. This is not dissimilar to the current democratic state of affairs, except our current system is far more corrupt.

To the argument that I'm just butt-hurt about the stumbling of the current US political system. I've always been skeptical of democracy.

ok to be blunt, define corrupt? because it really doesn't sound like anything different than we have now save the lack of mass communication. What kill trigger prevented bribery extortion and the dreaded globalism? (Which is now the new devil to many.) Also America has never been a monarchy, to install anarchy would require a total revolution you would have to break or kill everyone that was part of the old system. How do we know it'd even be worth it at that point?

Even America's revolution had some obvious losers. much of the instability we have today is partial fueled by sins of the past. The history books just sort of whited them out over time. (no I'm not referring to race, I mean white out as in actually whiting out something.) much of the instability we have today is partial fueled by sins of the past

 

[Yinko]

define corrupt?

Most congressmen in the US are bought. I remember, years ago, Colbert was pointing out how a pair of them were backing supplement companies to the hilt due to funds they'd been being given for decades. Even without lobbying, there are plenty of other ways for companies and individuals like Soros to give kickbacks to politicians in return for their assistance on critical legislation.

Historically, many of the nobility kind of despised money-grubbing BS. Sure, they'd take your money, but that wouldn't be any assurance of cooperation, just like it isn't in the Middle East right now. Because the Middle East (the Gulf Arabs specifically) have an aristocratic society. In such a system, the method of bribery must conform to the highest good of the target culture, in these cases that is prestige, and prestige is far harder to gift someone than cash.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Most congressmen in the US are bought. I remember, years ago, Colbert was pointing out how a pair of them were backing supplement companies to the hilt due to funds they'd been being given for decades. Even without lobbying, there are plenty of other ways for companies and individuals like Soros to give kickbacks to politicians in return for their assistance on critical legislation.

Historically, many of the nobility kind of despised money-grubbing BS. Sure, they'd take your money, but that wouldn't be any assurance of cooperation, just like it isn't in the Middle East right now. Because the Middle East (the Gulf Arabs specifically) have an aristocratic society. In such a system, the method of bribery must conform to the highest good of the target culture, in these cases that is prestige, and prestige is far harder to gift someone than cash.

I don't know. seems pretty cheap in the US. Look at our media and the way they worship the rich.

 

[bintananth]

To the argument that I'm just butt-hurt about the stumbling of the current US political system. I've always been skeptical of democracy.

I think my grandmothers' older brother got it right with our family trust: "the five most senior adults are in charge and there are very strict rules".

I am currently #5 and would not be #5 if my eldest sister hadn't done something on the "don't do that" list to get herself and her descendants excluded.

 

[Yinko]

I don't know. seems pretty cheap in the US. Look at our media and the way they worship the rich.

Remember the part where I said "you have to bribe people with the highest good of the target culture"? In our culture, the culture of captialist-democracy and communism, that highest good is cash. Because both are based around economic principles. You cannot have a culture that puts finances first without that creating a weakness to bribery.

Typical highest goods are: religion, prestige (sometimes measured in status symbols), honor, and cash. If there are others, they are very rare and I am not aware of them. It would seem that the Crusader Kings franchise got it almost right, the main difference is that there is a fine line between prestige and honor. Prestige is recognized externally, honor internally. Honor is the virtue of the individualistic culture, prestige the communal culture.

I think my grandmothers' older brother got it right with our family trust: "the five most senior adults are in charge and there are very strict rules".

I wish my family had something similar. There are quite a few people who should have been kicked down the totem pole for the crap they pulled. But, since it's a dysfunctional agora and not an oligarchy, they have an equal voice.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Remember the part where I said "you have to bribe people with the highest good of the target culture"? In our culture, the culture of captialist-democracy and communism, that highest good is cash. Because both are based around economic principles. You cannot have a culture that puts finances first without that creating a weakness to bribery.

Typical highest goods are: religion, prestige (sometimes measured in status symbols), honor, and cash. If there are others, they are very rare and I am not aware of them. It would seem that the Crusader Kings franchise got it almost right, the main difference is that there is a fine line between prestige and honor. Prestige is recognized externally, honor internally. Honor is the virtue of the individualistic culture, prestige the communal culture.

it's still a matter of pick your poison though. Which highest good you find least disgusting and are willing to live with the abuses of. Honestly, I find prestige to be just as disgusting as cash because you easily have nepotism and sins of your ancestors. Not to mention at its absolute extreme you get eugenics to the point of inbreeding, and we already got enough mentally unstable nobles in America. Religion is slightly better but as the pharesses in the bible show, just because you have the appearance of holiness doesn't mean your righteous. Honor is the best on paper, but who gets to define what is honorable.

 

[bintananth]

I wish my family had something similar. There are quite a few people who should have been kicked down the totem pole for the crap they pulled. But, since it's a dysfunctional agora and not an oligarchy, they have an equal voice.

My twin sis is currently #4. She does X-rated work and none of her kids were sired by her husband. Three of her four will outrank me when they turn 18 and we're ok with that.

Our eldest sister took her husband's surname. That was not ok.

 

[Yinko]

it's still a matter of pick your poison though. Which highest good you find least disgusting and are willing to live with the abuses of. Honestly, I find prestige to be just as disgusting as cash because you easily have nepotism and sins of your ancestors. Not to mention at its absolute extreme you get eugenics to the point of inbreeding, and we already got enough mentally unstable nobles in America. Religion is slightly better but as the pharesses in the bible show, just because you have the appearance of holiness doesn't mean your righteous. Honor is the best on paper, but who gets to define what is honorable.

Any of them are bad when taken to an extreme, that is the nature of extremes. The real question is, how long does it take for the corruption to set in? With prestige based culture it takes generations, with cash based cultures it takes months.

She does X-rated work

Any stage name we might look up?

Our eldest sister took her husband's surname. That was not ok.

That's interesting. Very clannish. Typically, in most Asian cultures, the woman is almost exiled to the man's family upon marriage. Not a proper member of either. I don't think that there is a tradition, historically, of taking the husband's name, but if you allowed for any degree of cultural blending at all then it would follow rather easily. On the other hand, if the whole point is to differentiate the extended family from the outside world, then things get kind of flipped on their head.

 

[bintananth]

Any stage name we might look up?

I ain't sharing that here.

That's interesting. Very clannish. Typically, in most Asian cultures, the woman is almost exiled to the man's family upon marriage. Not a proper member of either. I don't think that there is a tradition, historically, of taking the husband's name, but if you allowed for any degree of cultural blending at all then it would follow rather easily. On the other hand, if the whole point is to differentiate the extended family from the outside world, then things get kind of flipped on their head.

My parents were never told who their dad was.

 

[Simonbob]

My twin sis is currently #4. She does X-rated work and none of her kids were sired by her husband. Three of her four will outrank me when they turn 18 and we're ok with that.

Our eldest sister took her husband's surname. That was not ok.

That's..... Deeply backwards.

Doing X-rated work almost always goes with mental issues, and, often abuse as a kid. None of her kids being sired by her husband? Why marry that guy then? Something wrong with him, if he accepts it.

The kids might be ok, but screwed up parents leads almost always, to screwed up kids.


I suppose that taking the Husband's name means she's not part of the family, in a sense? I can see that, kind of. Still a much better thing to be than the other sister.





Good luck. I hope your family gets better.

 

[bintananth]

That's..... Deeply backwards.

Doing X-rated work almost always goes with mental issues, and, often abuse as a kid. None of her kids being sired by her husband? Why marry that guy then? Something wrong with him, if he accepts it.

The kids might be ok, but screwed up parents leads almost always, to screwed up kids.


I suppose that taking the Husband's name means she's not part of the family, in a sense? I can see that, kind of. Still a much better thing to be than the other sister.





Good luck. I hope your family gets better.

You've got the entirely wrong idea. My twin sister's husband is gay and a "big scary black man" from East St. Louis with a scar on his forehead from getting grazed by a bullet as a child. No harm will come to a child when he's nearby.

As for my eldest sister. She didn't want to be one of the ones who has to contain dad's "little kid in a candy store, and I'm buying all of it" tendencies.

 

[Simonbob]

You've got the entirely wrong idea. My twin sister's husband is gay and a "big scary black man" from East St. Louis with a scar on his forehead from getting grazed by a bullet as a child. No harm will come to a child when he's nearby.

As for my eldest sister. She didn't want to be one of the ones who has to contain dad's "little kid in a candy store, and I'm buying all of it" tendencies.

Ah.

Still, why marry, then? Oh, well. It's not really my business.

Let's leave it there.