NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought this up last night.

In a Republic: There will be senators which represent the people, and who vote for the major things (Leaders, etc.). How ever, people have only the power to elect the senators and minor laws. Therefore, they will want more power, eventually leading to a democratic revolution.

In a Democracy: The people will vote on everything. Leaders, major laws, minor laws, etc. Eventually, the smart people and leaders will decide "The people don't know what's good for them, let's decide for them!" And thus, it becomes a Republican state, again.

In Anarchy: The original concept of Anarchy is that there is NO government. With no government, that means that people will techincally have to roam the land. Eventually, people will band together, and make laws, and elect leaders, thereby defeating the original purpose of Anarchy.

In Communism: (Dear god I'm demeaning my own political affiliation...) Eventually, smart people will get tired of working for 6 hours as scientists and getting the same pay and rewards as a factory worker who works for 6 hours. Therefore, they will decide that they want more power. They will start a rebellion, and this will lead to something of a Stalinist Russia (Which wasn't true communism), or some other government type, possibly a Monarchy.

In a Depositism: The ruler controls EVERYTHING. This makes the people mad, as they wish to have some control over thier lives. Therefore, rebellions and revolutions will be performed, thereby leading to the eventual downfall of the Despot.

Now then, for the Monarchy: The ruler controls about a quarter of everything. The people, such as the Privy Council from England, control the rest. The people and the ruler are happy, as they are both given power. The little people have more control over thier local laws and government than in a Republic, yet there are still represenatives for the major national laws. There might be rebellions, but if there are, you will notice in history that the next ruler will still rule with a Monarchy.

So techincally it seems, Monarchy is the only viable answer to make a government which lasts. Tell me your thoughts on this.

INow then, for the Monarchy: The ruler controls about a quarter of everything. The people, such as the Privy Council from England, control the rest. The people and the ruler are happy, as they are both given power. The little people have more control over thier local laws and government than in a Republic, yet there are still represenatives for the major national laws. There might be rebellions, but if there are, you will notice in history that the next ruler will still rule with a Monarchy.

So techincally it seems, Monarchy is the only viable answer to make a government which lasts. Tell me your thoughts on this.
To be perfectly honest, the only thing I've got from your post is that you don't know how the government of 'England' works (I'm guessing you mean the UK, despite the insult that some would take at being lumped under the common banner of "England").

Privy Council? Does nothing in actual terms. The Monarch? Their power is all symbolical, in reality it's all exercised by the Cabinet, with the consent of Parliament.

Monarchy isn't the only government that works. Any government that can hold on to power works. Generally the purpose of government (beyond keeping the country ticking over) is to perpetuate itself.

EDIT:500 posts! Goddamnit I wish I still had my old account :(

Also, an important thing to note is that the UK is a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy.

Your respective definitions are all a bit dodgy to be honest.

Representative democracy has something you didn't think of - by giving people the choice between parties, you make them feel like they have control of the country.

To be perfectly honest, the only thing I've got from your post is that you don't know how the government of 'England' works (I'm guessing you mean the UK, despite the insult that some would take at being lumped under the common banner of "England").

Privy Council? Does nothing in actual terms. The Monarch? Their power is all symbolical, in reality it's all exercised by the Cabinet, with the consent of Parliament.
*slap slap slap* I meant midevial Europe!

Your respective definitions are all a bit dodgy to be honest.
Sorry, I'm half asleep right now. I just got up like, half an hour ago, and I haven't had any caffeine.

Medieval Europe? Nobody was really that happy, but the feudal sysem works so well people don't really think much of revolting unless something really bad happens...

Medieval Europe? Nobody was really that happy, but the feudal sysem works so well people don't really think much of revolting unless something really bad happens...
Exactly. That's what I meant.

If monarchies were the only stable form of government you'd think there'd be a lot more of them. As it stands, most modern "monarchies" seem to be actually republics with a powerless figurehead whose only purpose is to suck up government money and do a ceremony or two- there's only what, seven actual monarchies left in the world today?

*slap slap slap* I meant midevial Europe!
Well, you're still wrong, because that's not how government in medieval Europe worked.

Take England's medieval government (which I've, handily, been studying for the last 6 months in Uni).


King at head. Has income from his own lands and from customs duties etc.

Needs more money, probably for war in France, Scotland, or sometimes Ireland (or all three).

King summons Parliament.

Asks Lords/Commons (depending on the time, the Commons may not have yet come into existence, they weren't first summoned by the King until 1295, and even then didn't sit as distinct from the Lords) for more money from them...a 10th, or a 15th, maybe, if he's particularly cash-strapped.

Lords tell the king they'll consider it if he considers their grievences which are presented as petitions.

King looks at some, maybe grants some changes through an Ordinance, or lets Parliament pass a Statute and stamps it into law. Discards others.

Lords grant extra tax.

King dismisses Parliament.



Now, where do the "little people" have a say in that?

Well, you're still wrong, because that's not how government in medieval Europe worked.

Take England's medieval government (which I've, handily, been studying for the last 6 months in Uni).


King at head. Has income from his own lands and from customs duties etc.

Needs more money, probably for war in France, Scotland, or sometimes Ireland (or all three).

King summons Parliament.

Asks Lords/Commons (depending on the time, the Commons may not have yet come into existence, they weren't first summoned by the King until 1295, and even then didn't sit as distinct from the Lords) for more money from them...a 10th, or a 15th, maybe, if he's particularly cash-strapped.

Lords tell the king they'll consider it if he considers their grievences which are presented as petitions.

King looks at some, maybe grants some changes through an Ordinance, or lets Parliament pass a Statute and stamps it into law. Discards others.

Lords grant extra tax.

King dismisses Parliament.



Now, where do the "little people" have a say in that?
Fucking history teacher... Maybe schools ARE spreading propaganda...

I wondered the other day whether there was actually any point in having a republic today. If we compare and contrast Germany and Britain.

German Head of State acts as a representative of the nation, signing laws and dissolving parliament upon the advice of the head of government, the Chancellor.

The British Head of State, Gawd Bless Her its the Queen! etc, acts as a representative of the nation, signs laws and dissolving parliament upon the advice of the head of government, the Prime Minister.

So, is there anything that the German President does that couldn't be done bya Kaiser?

Plus, there'd be brass bands and stuff like that.

Think about it.

The only stable form of society is one with no class struggle; which is communism.

In all other forms of society, the structure of the society itself is a struggle between two or more classes: workers vs owners, subjects vs nobility, "common people" vs rulers, or whatever. No society based on struggles can be stable for a long time, a side will eventually tip the balance sooner or later.

For monarchy, nearly all monarchs were either kicked by a revolution or gave up most of their power to avoid it. I wouldn't call that a stable system.

Well, maybe a 1984-like totalitarian society could be come stable, if they manage to really control people's mind, but I doubt that even that would hold for long.

In communism, there is one big problem: Why do some enterprising, if you still wont make any more than a worker who works like a robot on a factory line. Why should scientists work extra hours, when they still get the same pay?

Fucking history teacher... Maybe schools ARE spreading propaganda...
Propaganda?

No, that's just how medieval government worked.

In communism, there is one big problem: Why do some enterprising, if you still wont make any more than a worker who works like a robot on a factory line. Why should scientists work extra hours, when they still get the same pay?

For the betterment of all? Not thinking like a fucking individual for once maybe?

'Feudal' systems are inherently unstable. Like Nadkor, I've been doing mediaeval history for the past year, and one of the main reasons why it continued through revolution after revolution was a devotion to tradition. Monarchs and lords were continually fighting over their 'customary rights'.
Also, the nobility had all the power. The rgular folk had little to none. The Commons consisted of elected burgesses (basically rich townfolk) and regular knights, not serfs or anyone who represented the vast majority of folk.

(I know this is a simple account, but it's close enough to reality to do me.)

Propaganda?

No, that's just how medieval government worked.
No, but according to my history teacher, the little people still had power in midevial England. Not saying you're spreading propaganda. Saying they are so that when HRM, HRC takes power, we'll think it's a good thing.

Cookie to who ever can decipher the acronyms.

In communism, there is one big problem: Why do some enterprising, if you still wont make any more than a worker who works like a robot on a factory line. Why should scientists work extra hours, when they still get the same pay?

Well, first, communism don't oppose having extra hours paid more (to a limited account).

Then, since the job of factory line worker is so boring, even without extra pay, many will try to avoid it and do more interesting jobs - we don't need money incentive for that.

And finally, communism appeal to what's best in people: generosity, sharing, working together. Those are much better motivators than money, and even in a capitalist society, it's the motivation of many of the most bright men of history - in science, arts, philosophy, ...

No, but according to my history teacher, the little people still had power in midevial England. Not saying you're spreading propaganda. Saying they are so that when HRM, HRC takes power, we'll think it's a good thing.

Cookie to who ever can decipher the acronyms.
If by little people you mean knights and rich townfolk, then yes. If by little people you mean serfs and peasants, then no.

Also, it's mediaeval (or medieval if you are American or don't like the ligature). Midevial is starting to get my goat. </SPELLING NAZI>

If by little people you mean knights and rich townfolk, then yes. If by little people you mean serfs and peasants, then no.

Also, it's mediaeval (or medieval if you are American or don't like the ligature). Midevial is starting to get my goat. </SPELLING NAZI>

I have never spelt it that way in my life!

No, but according to my history teacher, the little people still had power in midevial England. Not saying you're spreading propaganda. Saying they are so that when HRM, HRC takes power, we'll think it's a good thing.

Well, your history teacher is, unfortunately, wrong on that.

I know - I'm one of the few people who do. Even my English nerd friend who also does history (and pronounces lieutenant and clerk and derby as leftenant and clark and darby) spells it medieval. It's like encyclopaedia vs encyclopedia. I like the ae spelling.

So techincally it seems, Monarchy is the only viable answer to make a government which lasts. Tell me your thoughts on this.

Monarchies are just as prone to rebellion as any other form of government.

Governments are meant to suit the needs of the populace, and one may be better than another at any particular time. Generally speaking however, democratic or republican ones work best since they offer a non-violent means of conflict resolution amongst it's populace, and the ability to change leaders if they aren't stuck with some hereditary numbskull.

(and pronounces lieutenant and clerk and derby as leftenant and clark and darby)
Surely that's the way they're meant to be pronounced? :confused:

Surely that's the way they're meant to be pronounced? :confused:

Lieutenant is an interchangable one AFAIK.

It depends on which military you are talking about - and I think, possibly, they may be different ranks in different armies. Though am not too sure.

[QUOTE=Ootbrrfry] As it stands, most modern "monarchies" seem to be actually republics with a powerless figurehead whose only purpose is to suck up government money and do a ceremony or twoQUOTE]

The monarchy, in Britain at least, creates more money for the economy then costs through tourism. Many of the royal family also fund themselves through intelligent investment, and land ownership.

As for doing a ceremony or two, the monarch provides a stable political leader and unifying figurehead in an otherwise divisive democratic system. Without the inherent competition between parties the democratic system would not function; but as a result the ensuing inevitable character slander and healthy suspicion weakens the leadership position. How many Prime ministers and presidents ever achieve national consensus regarding their suitability to govern? What affect must this have on national unity, especially during times of crisis? During recant years has your country rallied around your leader through turmoil, or has the opposition profoundly proclaimed gross mismanagement and the imminent collapse of society in a desperate bid for votes.

It was Plato that first explained this very weakness, one that today results in disillusionment and poor voter turnouts. Most voters now believe they choose only the lesser of two evils at the polling station, hoping to limit the damming of their actions by future generations. And governments wonder why the young aren’t voting, saying it will make little difference.

Aside from this, most monarchy’s still enjoy several royal prerogatives that may one day be necessary to remove corruption or unpopular dictatorship. We can witness this in the actions of the Nepalese king, whose actions could have prevented the country falling to murderous communists, if he wasn’t betrayed by normally anti-Communist democracies. He was denied international support because bigoted western democrats refused to consider his royal leadership better then any democratic system, even one controlled by violent rebels bent on another cultural revolution.

Surely that's the way they're meant to be pronounced? :confused:
Yup (Apart from for the armies of non-former-British-colonies and tke Kentucky Derby). And it's how mediaeval is meant to be spelled. But no-one ever does...
Draig Goch, what a first post... <shakes head>
Seriously, you believe that dictatorial rule is better than monarchy? You listen to Platonic ideals of government? The communist Maoists you so obviously despise have more popular support (some) in Nepal than Gyanendra (less than none).

Whatever form of government you have, you need accountability, including the ability to kick out a bad leader. Countries without a legal way to get rid of the leader tend to have armed rebellions.

[QUOTE=Ootbrrfry] As it stands, most modern "monarchies" seem to be actually republics with a powerless figurehead whose only purpose is to suck up government money and do a ceremony or twoQUOTE]

The monarchy, in Britain at least, creates more money for the economy then costs through tourism. Many of the royal family also fund themselves through intelligent investment, and land ownership.

As for doing a ceremony or two, the monarch provides a stable political leader and unifying figurehead in an otherwise divisive democratic system. Without the inherent competition between parties the democratic system would not function; but as a result the ensuing inevitable character slander and healthy suspicion weakens the leadership position. How many Prime ministers and presidents ever achieve national consensus regarding their suitability to govern? What affect must this have on national unity, especially during times of crisis? During recant years has your country rallied around your leader through turmoil, or has the opposition profoundly proclaimed gross mismanagement and the imminent collapse of society in a desperate bid for votes.

It was Plato that first explained this very weakness, one that today results in disillusionment and poor voter turnouts. Most voters now believe they choose only the lesser of two evils at the polling station, hoping to limit the damming of their actions by future generations. And governments wonder why the young aren’t voting, saying it will make little difference.

Aside from this, most monarchy’s still enjoy several royal prerogatives that may one day be necessary to remove corruption or unpopular dictatorship. We can witness this in the actions of the Nepalese king, whose actions could have prevented the country falling to murderous communists, if he wasn’t betrayed by normally anti-Communist democracies. He was denied international support because bigoted western democrats refused to consider his royal leadership better then any democratic system, even one controlled by violent rebels bent on another cultural revolution.

Nice first post :)

I hadn't really examined the 'appearance of stability' factor that monarchism entails.

I thought this up last night.

In a Republic: -snip-
In a Democracy: -snip-
In Anarchy: -snip-
In Communism: -snip-
In a Depositism: -snip-
Monarchy: -snip-
I am some what suspicious that you have just named all the forms of government exactly as they are named in Civ. You see most people I know would refer to despotism as a dictatorship or even a tyranny.

And from what I remember most people prefered monarchy when playing Civ, you got free unit support and corruption wasn't too bad.

Maybe I'm being a wee bit too cynical here though.

And you seem to presume that a constitutional monarchy where the monarch still retains a certain amount of power is the only form of monarchy. What about absolute monarchies and the divine right of kings? You seem to have skipped over this entirely.

The only stable form of society is one with no class struggle; which is communism.

In all other forms of society, the structure of the society itself is a struggle between two or more classes: workers vs owners, subjects vs nobility, "common people" vs rulers, or whatever. No society based on struggles can be stable for a long time, a side will eventually tip the balance sooner or later.


Class struggle is still unavoidable based on natural ability and the role people play in society. If not workers vs. owners then workers vs. planners/scientists/teachers/managers, etc... There will always be people making decisions and people living with them. Someone has to decide who works to produce what, what process is used in production, what happens to what is produced, and how distribution is handled. You can call that classless all you like, but at the end of the day not all necessary roles are equal. Even if it's informal there is still authoritative strata.

Ultimately though; scientists would wield the most authority, automation would be the highest standard, and distribution/production decisions would be made by super computers all networked together.

Technocracy > Communism

In Anarchy: The original concept of Anarchy is that there is NO government. With no government, that means that people will techincally have to roam the land.

This doesn't follow: government is not the same as a sedentary population. There may very well be many valid arguments against anarchism, but this is not one of them.

For the betterment of all? Not thinking like a fucking individual for once maybe?

Then we are intended to live like religious zealots concerned first with foremost with the cause? My existence is too fleeting to be devoted to some cause.

*slap slap slap* I meant midevial Europe!

But look what mediæval (Cool spelling) Europe did, it went into republics and pseudo-democracies (Like my darling UK).

And they all lived happily ever after, after Two World Wars.

Well, first, communism don't oppose having extra hours paid more (to a limited account).

Then, since the job of factory line worker is so boring, even without extra pay, many will try to avoid it and do more interesting jobs - we don't need money incentive for that.

I thought communism fundamentally opposed wage labor.

And how do you keep factory line jobs filled with the necessary labor?

The monarchy, in Britain at least, creates more money for the economy then costs through tourism.


A typical royalist assertion; dubious and unproven. There is no common recognition that tourist revenues would decrease in the face of the abolition of the Monarchy. It's just a contention that Monarchists believe will be accepted without question if they repeat it often enough.


Many of the royal family also fund themselves through intelligent investment, and land ownership.


I'm afraid not, all members of the royal family are funded by the Civil List. This cannot be discounted against the Crown Estates as these are the property of the office of the Head of State, not the personal property of the Monarch.

Intelligent investment? Is that investment which isn't subject to the same tax rules as everyone else?


As for doing a ceremony or two, the monarch provides a stable political leader and unifying figurehead in an otherwise divisive democratic system. Without the inherent competition between parties the democratic system would not function; but as a result the ensuing inevitable character slander and healthy suspicion weakens the leadership position. How many Prime ministers and presidents ever achieve national consensus regarding their suitability to govern? What affect must this have on national unity, especially during times of crisis? During recant years has your country rallied around your leader through turmoil, or has the opposition profoundly proclaimed gross mismanagement and the imminent collapse of society in a desperate bid for votes.


Unfortunately, this is all dependent on the Monarch remaining 'above politics'. Fair enough if they behave as the present Queen has done, definitely not so if they behave like Prince Charles.

And what justification do you have for believing that a non-executive elected president would be partisan?



Aside from this, most monarchy’s still enjoy several royal prerogatives that may one day be necessary to remove corruption or unpopular dictatorship. We can witness this in the actions of the Nepalese king, whose actions could have prevented the country falling to murderous communists, if he wasn’t betrayed by normally anti-Communist democracies. He was denied international support because bigoted western democrats refused to consider his royal leadership better then any democratic system, even one controlled by violent rebels bent on another cultural revolution.



This is utterly ridiculous and betrays a complete ignorance of the Nepalese situation. The turmoil in the kingdom is a direct result of the abuse of royal power by the King, not a consequence of any restraint in using such powers on his part. He has not been supported by Western powers because he is the unpopular dictator suppressing democracy and his own people.

The monarchy, in Britain at least, creates more money for the economy then costs through tourism. Many of the royal family also fund themselves through intelligent investment, and land ownership.

As for doing a ceremony or two, the monarch provides a stable political leader and unifying figurehead in an otherwise divisive democratic system. Without the inherent competition between parties the democratic system would not function; but as a result the ensuing inevitable character slander and healthy suspicion weakens the leadership position. How many Prime ministers and presidents ever achieve national consensus regarding their suitability to govern? What affect must this have on national unity, especially during times of crisis? During recant years has your country rallied around your leader through turmoil, or has the opposition profoundly proclaimed gross mismanagement and the imminent collapse of society in a desperate bid for votes.

It was Plato that first explained this very weakness, one that today results in disillusionment and poor voter turnouts. Most voters now believe they choose only the lesser of two evils at the polling station, hoping to limit the damming of their actions by future generations. And governments wonder why the young aren’t voting, saying it will make little difference.

Aside from this, most monarchy’s still enjoy several royal prerogatives that may one day be necessary to remove corruption or unpopular dictatorship. We can witness this in the actions of the Nepalese king, whose actions could have prevented the country falling to murderous communists, if he wasn’t betrayed by normally anti-Communist democracies. He was denied international support because bigoted western democrats refused to consider his royal leadership better then any democratic system, even one controlled by violent rebels bent on another cultural revolution.A couple of things.

I do not think monarchy brings in tourism because it is a monarchy, but because it is an old tradition. Would tourism increase if the monarchy was abolished and tourists were allowed into the palaces?

What do you make of the outgoing Italian President Mr Ciampi? I think Mr Ciampi is proof that a republic such as Italy's can provide a stable and unifying head of state. The stability that Queen Elizabeth provides is not due to her status as a monarch or long term head of state, it is more to do with her prowess as head of state and that she is a separate entity from the government. In Italy and the UK the head of state and the head of government are two different people as opposed to France the US head of state is very powerful and has the power to appoint the head of government in France and actually is the head of government in the US. Both Queen Elizabeth and Ciampi have been vastly more popular than Chirac and Bush in their own countries. Whereas Berlusconi and Blair have become fairly unpopular recently (Berlusconi so much so that he has just lost an election).

Monarch's aren't always unifying either. There have been some very divisive monarchs in the UK's history. George III is a good example.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what has happening in Nepal, even moreso than my own. I do know that Gyanendra is deeply unpopular and despises democracy. And if I remember correctly the cause of the maoist rebelion stems from the use of the monarchy's use of the royal perogative to dissolve their recently democratically elected government. Gyanendra is a good example of a unifying head of state, but of instead of rallying behind him the maoists, the government and the people have all rallied against him.

Then we are intended to live like religious zealots concerned first with foremost with the cause? My existence is too fleeting to be devoted to some cause.

The "cause"?
The only "cause" would be the betterment of humanity. Sorry if you're against that.

A monarchy though is a thing of the past. Its a middle ages type of government. Here in the technology era, democratic rule works best as it did in the industral age. People are more empowered then they were in the past

Valdania: Check your post. You've attributed your quotes to the Ootbrrfry instead of Draig goch. Ootbrrfry looks like (s)he is rather anti-monarchy.

The original post has a broken quote in it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10888777&postcount=28

I'm afraid not, all members of the royal family are funded by the Civil List. This cannot be discounted against the Crown Estates as these are the property of the office of the Head of State, not the personal property of the Monarch.
If you're going to say that the Crown Estates can't be counted, because they are part of the position, then fair enough.

But don't then use the Civil List as an attack against the Royal Family, as most of it is spent on upkeep of residences, and security, and other things associated with their official offices.

Basically what I'm saying is this: don't discount one financial thing because it is part of the office while using another financial part of the office to attack them, just because that particularly financial thing suits your argument. It just makes you look silly, and mildly hypocritical; "you can't use this because it's owned by the office and not the person themselves, but you can use this even though it's spent on maintaining things owned by the office and not on the person themseves."

You see what I mean?

Oh, and I'm not a monarchist, I'm just pointing out the inconsistincies in your post,

Valdania: Check your post. You've attributed your quotes to the Ootbrrfry instead of Draig goch. Ootbrrfry looks like (s)he is rather anti-monarchy.

The original post has a broken quote in it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10888777&postcount=28

yeah, I noticed that and corrected it.

Your respective definitions are all a bit dodgy to be honest.

Assuming dodgy means what I think it means (there's a Yank over here) I agree. In anarchy people wouldn't "roam the land" just because there's no goverment doesn't mean there's no order or infrastructure. It's just voluntary order and infrastructure.

If you're going to say that the Crown Estates can't be counted, because they are part of the position, then fair enough.

But don't then use the Civil List as an attack against the Royal Family, as most of it is spent on upkeep of residences, and security, and other things associated with their official offices.

Basically what I'm saying is this: don't discount one financial thing because it is part of the office while using another financial part of the office to attack them, just because that particularly financial thing suits your argument. It just makes you look silly, and mildly hypocritical; "you can't use this because it's owned by the office and not the person themselves, but you can use this even though it's spent on maintaining things owned by the office and not on the person themseves."

You see what I mean?

Oh, and I'm not a monarchist, I'm just pointing out the inconsistincies in your post,

No, not really.

I don't think it's inconsistent. The Civil List is basically an allowance paid to persons by virtue of birth alone. The amounts are excessive and inappropriate given the work undertaken by those who receive them.

Royalists continually attempt to write them off against the income the State receives from the Crown Estates. I am making the perfectly valid counter-argument that, were the Monarchy abolished, the Civil List would cease to exist but the Crown Estates would remain the property of the State. The result is an insignificant, yet symbolically important, net reduction in costs for the taxpayer.

No, not really.

I don't think it's inconsistent. The Civil List is basically an allowance paid to persons by virtue of birth alone. The amounts are excessive and inappropriate given the work undertaken by those who receive them.

It's paid to the Monarch who happen to be filling the position. And spent on maintaining an office, the upkeep of buildings, expenses occurred during official business, and security. All these are paid to the position and are, in effect, the budget for the office. And only to the Monarch and their Consort, not to any other members of the Royal Family.

So, yes, the Crown Estates are property of the Crown, the office, but then the Civil List is paid only to the Crown, and the person in the office.

Royalists continually attempt to write them off against the income the State receives from the Crown Estates. I am making the perfectly valid counter-argument that, were the Monarchy abolished, the Civil List would cease to exist but the Crown Estates would remain the property of the State. The result is an insignificant, yet symbolically important, net reduction in costs for the taxpayer.

If the Monarchy were abolished, the Crown Estates would be, too, as they are the possesions of the Monarchy. If we went straight to a Republic they would most likely be transfered to be holdings of the position of President.

Now, the Civil List in 2002 was £8.1m. That paid for everything the Queen did in that year. Whether or not it's excessive is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I think £6m would be reasonable enough, when you consider what it's paying for (the buildings, security, etc.).

While abolishing the Monarchy would bring about the end of the current form fo funding for the Head of State, a Republic would herald a new form of Head of State, and a similar method of funding.

So, actually, nothing would change. In fact, a President would have more validity in getting even more money.

So, yeah, basically my point is that they're both factors of the office, so you can't discount one and use the other in your argument.

The only government that works is no government, vacuously.

In Communism: (Dear god I'm demeaning my own political affiliation...) Eventually, smart people will get tired of working for 6 hours as scientists and getting the same pay and rewards as a factory worker who works for 6 hours. Therefore, they will decide that they want more power. They will start a rebellion, and this will lead to something of a Stalinist Russia (Which wasn't true communism), or some other government type, possibly a Monarchy.

i don't think scientists will make for the best example here, considering most of them already bypass many lines of work that pay much more out of love for their chosen field and the project of science in general. you'd be better off trying it with a class of work whose workers typically don't do it for motivations other than money (unfortunately, a lot of those examples are going to be your lower end jobs, so that won't work either).

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what has happening in Nepal, even moreso than my own. I do know that Gyanendra is deeply unpopular and despises democracy. And if I remember correctly the cause of the maoist rebelion stems from the use of the monarchy's use of the royal perogative to dissolve their recently democratically elected government. Gyanendra is a good example of a unifying head of state, but of instead of rallying behind him the maoists, the government and the people have all rallied against him.
The Maoist uprising has been going on for years, not sure as to its cause. The recent popular uprising, which the Maoists support, is due to gyanendra's usurpation of power.

Maybe it's not the only goverment that works...BUT I STILL THINK IT'S THE BEST! I think Napoleon's Monarchy was AWSOME! And I do hope your refering to the past when you say "England".

The "cause"?
The only "cause" would be the betterment of humanity. Sorry if you're against that.

You confuse the betterment of humanity with your betterment of humanity. Don't claim the high ground as if I or any capitalist is out to destroy humanity

No one to get the acronym yet? Oh well... *Tosses cookie up and down*

The Maoist uprising has been going on for years, not sure as to its cause. The recent popular uprising, which the Maoists support, is due to gyanendra's usurpation of power.A communist led parliament was disolved by the king in 95/96. As I'm aware it was after that event when the Maoists announced their intention to try an overthrow the king and set up a socialist republic.

No one to get the acronym yet? Oh well... *Tosses cookie up and down*Which acronym?

No, but according to my history teacher, the little people still had power in midevial England. Not saying you're spreading propaganda. Saying they are so that when HRM, HRC takes power, we'll think it's a good thing.

Cookie to who ever can decipher the acronyms.
This acronym.

A communist led parliament was disolved by the king in 95/96. As I'm aware it was after that event when the Maoists announced their intention to try an overthrow the king and set up a socialist republic.
Yup, just checked up on that, it's true. I can't tell, but it's possible that the government was dissolved legitimately. The socialist government was replaced by another democratic government though.

You confuse the betterment of humanity with your betterment of humanity. Don't claim the high ground as if I or any capitalist is out to destroy humanity

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm not against Capitalism or 'Capitalists'.

I'm merely saying if people look peyond the individual once and a while then maybe as a species we could actually progress towards something that actually benefits society as a whole.

Is HRM her/his Royal Majestey??
no idea on HRC
(1/2 a cookie?)

the feudal sysem works so well people don't really think much of revolting unless something really bad happens... Like the black death.

But look what mediæval (Cool spelling) Europe did, it went into republics and pseudo-democracies (Like my darling UK).

And they all lived happily ever after, after Two World Wars.

I believe that a number of the Republics and whatnot are quite recent in relative terms. For example, Italy was a monarchy until 1946 (I'll have to check this, just a minute).

Yes, King Umberto II of the House of Savoy in 1946.

I thought this up last night.

In a Republic: There will be senators which represent the people, and who vote for the major things (Leaders, etc.). How ever, people have only the power to elect the senators and minor laws. Therefore, they will want more power, eventually leading to a democratic revolution.

In a Democracy: The people will vote on everything. Leaders, major laws, minor laws, etc. Eventually, the smart people and leaders will decide "The people don't know what's good for them, let's decide for them!" And thus, it becomes a Republican state, again.

In Anarchy: The original concept of Anarchy is that there is NO government. With no government, that means that people will techincally have to roam the land. Eventually, people will band together, and make laws, and elect leaders, thereby defeating the original purpose of Anarchy.

In Communism: (Dear god I'm demeaning my own political affiliation...) Eventually, smart people will get tired of working for 6 hours as scientists and getting the same pay and rewards as a factory worker who works for 6 hours. Therefore, they will decide that they want more power. They will start a rebellion, and this will lead to something of a Stalinist Russia (Which wasn't true communism), or some other government type, possibly a Monarchy.

In a Depositism: The ruler controls EVERYTHING. This makes the people mad, as they wish to have some control over thier lives. Therefore, rebellions and revolutions will be performed, thereby leading to the eventual downfall of the Despot.

Now then, for the Monarchy: The ruler controls about a quarter of everything. The people, such as the Privy Council from England, control the rest. The people and the ruler are happy, as they are both given power. The little people have more control over thier local laws and government than in a Republic, yet there are still represenatives for the major national laws. There might be rebellions, but if there are, you will notice in history that the next ruler will still rule with a Monarchy.

So techincally it seems, Monarchy is the only viable answer to make a government which lasts. Tell me your thoughts on this.

Europa Maxima will love this.:p

Europa Maxima will love this.:p

Who is this 'Europa Maxima'? Somebody was asking if it was me earlier.

Medieval Europe? Nobody was really that happy, but the feudal sysem works so well people don't really think much of revolting unless something really bad happens...

Like a poll tax? Of course, because politicians learn lessons from history nobody would be crazy enough to try and reintroduce the same unsound system about 700 years later. Oh, hang on...

Who is this 'Europa Maxima'? Somebody was asking if it was me earlier.

Hes another poster who is interested in Monarchy.

Somebody was asking if you were Europa Maxima?

The only government that works is a mixed regime that accounts for the passions of the Many who love their lives and livelihood above all, the Few who love honor and gain it by protecting the Many who can't secure themselves, and the Very Few or One who has practical knowledge and desires the power to use it.

This is generally called a Republic and it is made up of one or more legislative bodies of citizens and it functions best when it makes moderate laws, and an executive who has the kind of common sense and experience necessary to make more immediate, timely judgments and who generally oversees the honor-loving class, the soldiers and officers of the law. There is also a separate judiciary body that is the only one that can truly deliberate and make use of wisdom to make changes in the constitutional form or function of the regime as needed.

Separation of powers and government by one, few and many, it's a beautiful thing at least in theory. Still takes sensible people to run it though.

Naliitr, have you read The Social Contract (by Jean-Jacques Rousseau)? He is also a fan of the whole "monarchy is best thing". Can't remember why off-hand, but he said that monarchy is best for large countries (probably to maximise efficiency, so that stuff gets done. Easier to have one person make the decisions than get everyone to.)

No, not really.

I don't think it's inconsistent. The Civil List is basically an allowance paid to persons by virtue of birth alone. The amounts are excessive and inappropriate given the work undertaken by those who receive them.

Royalists continually attempt to write them off against the income the State receives from the Crown Estates. I am making the perfectly valid counter-argument that, were the Monarchy abolished, the Civil List would cease to exist but the Crown Estates would remain the property of the State. The result is an insignificant, yet symbolically important, net reduction in costs for the taxpayer.

ooh looks like jealosy to me, besides i dont think you understand where the money from the civil list goes

Hes another poster who is interested in Monarchy.

Somebody was asking if you were Europa Maxima?
Indeed. Although my interest in Monarchy is more conceptual than based on previous Monarchies that have already existed. It's more of a socially mobile, meritocratic aristocracy with a life-long head of state, and minarchist in nature. So essentially it is my preferred version of Minarchism.

Indeed. Although my interest in Monarchy is more conceptual than based on previous Monarchies that have already existed. It's more of a socially mobile, meritocratic aristocracy with a life-long head of state, and minarchist in nature. So essentially it is my preferred version of Minarchism.

Well, to each his own.

Well, to each his own.
Why would people be confusing you with me anyway?

Why would people be confusing you with me anyway?

I do not have one jot of a clue. Possibly because I am, overall, in favour of monarchy in general as opposed to republicanism and very interested in its history, structure and governance. (I mean, look at Germany between the two World Wars. What a complete and unmitigated disaster.)

I do not have one jot of a clue. Possibly because I am, overall, in favour of monarchy in general as opposed to republicanism and very interested in its history, structure and governance. (I mean, look at Germany between the two World Wars. What a complete and unmitigated disaster.)
Same here, though like I said I have different notions as to its ideal application.

WW I is essentially the war that should have never happened.

Same here, though like I said I have different notions as to its ideal application.

WW I is essentially the war that should have never happened.

The cause of the Great War can be traced back to the bankruptcy of Charles Babbage.

1. He did not have enough money to complete his difference engine.
2. If he had been properly funded, then the increased accuracy brought to Great Britain would have made her so rich that no one would have dared to challenge her supremacy.

Therefore:
1. The Titanic would be an insignificant ship of which no one had ever heard today.
2. No Great War because Britain's so powerful.
3. No Weimar Republic.
4. No Nazi Police State.
5. No Second World War.
6. No Cold War.
7. No supreme USA.
The list goes on!

*skip*
Alas, turning back time is impossible. So the best we can do is speculate.

I have a better idea.
Let's speculate and criticise everything under the sun at the same time. Always works for me.

I have a better idea.
Let's speculate and criticise everything under the sun at the same time. Always works for me.
Indeed. Something I already do in fact. BTW, sent you a TG.