NationStates Jolt Archive

The UK isn't a monarchy, it's a constitutional monarchy.

Depends who the monarch is.

I was just wondering everyone's opinions were of monarchies were! :)

I actually kind of like our monarchy (i live in the UK); it kind of gives a little bit more celebrity culture to drool over lol, even though I believe in equality of everybody and all that stuff... :D

So what do you think?

useless. They cost way to much money and don't really do anything good. The money spent on them could a lot better be used, saving children from preventable diseases or something like that. But it could be worse, they could actually have power :eek: fortunately we're past that stage.

I'm a fan of the British Monarchy. Funny to see the guys wandering around in the hats.

The UK isn't a monarchy, it's a constitutional monarchy.

The UK does not have a constitution.
It does have a huge amount of laws, rules and paperwork that fullfill a similar role.

The UK isn't a monarchy, it's a constitutional monarchy.

And???????? We did away with the monarchy in 1776. :)

I actually kind of like our monarchy (i live in the UK); it kind of gives a little bit more celebrity culture to drool over lol, even though I believe in equality of everybody and all that stuff... :D
I consider myself a Socialist, but I actually quite like the Queen. She seems to be the best possible candidate for the throne at the moment, miles better than bloody Charles, who sees fit to constantly send politicians letters "advising" them to do what he thinks best and also is a massive proponent of homopathy and all that alternative crap. I honestly hope that when he becomes king he'll take a leaf out his mother's book and act like a monarch should, rather than the five-star twat that he is now. There's no hope of that, though.

Besides her majesty, the rest of them are a bunch of parasites that out to be cut out of the Royal Family and sent on their respective ways. I think we definately need to reduce their number. They could keep whatever titles they've had invented for them (Earl of Wessex, for Christ's sake. That was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, not a medieval Earldom), but they don't get any free money from the tax payer and they damned well can't call themselves "his/her royal highness" any more.

The UK does not have a constitution.

Actually the UK has an unwritten constitution that is derived from Common Law, Treaties/Acts of Parliament, Conventions, Works of Authority, Royal Prerogative and EU Law. The UK constitution has evolved through time.

I'm a fan of the British Monarchy. Funny to see the guys wandering around in the hats.
As in the Guards regiments? They'd undoubtedly be doing that anyway, with or without the monarchy. There are numerous Presidential guards across the world who wander about in stupid gear.

The UK does not have a constitution.

It's still technically classed as constitutional monarchy because the Queen has extremely little or no power (can't remember which). :D

The UK does not have a constitution.
It does have a huge amount of laws, rules and paperwork that fullfill a similar role.And yet, it is a constitutional monarchy...

It's still technically classed as constitutional monarchy because the Queen has extremely little or no power (can't remember which). :D

No power. With the last round of "reforms" under Blair, the Monarchy lost everything.

A monarchy can be a good thing. It can provide a memory and long term vision for a democracy (which have the ongoing problem of "can't think past the next election"), and provide a voice of reason and review not connected to short-sighted parties (or short-sighted electorates).

But they have to have the power to do that. Currently, the British monarchy has no worth.

They go pretty well with a side of cole slaw and a nice Cabernet Sauvignon. *nod*

But they have to have the power to do that. Currently, the British monarchy has no worth.
The Tories might do something about that, but I doubt it. They'll probably be content with the fact that Bliar brought in a shed load of reforms and laws they were itching to bring in, but as New "Labour" did it during their terms in power, it had the added bonus of the Tories being able to bitch and whine insincerly about it, making it look like they were on the people's, rather than rich toffs, side.

Every position with any sort of power should have to go through elections on a regular basis. Still, I'll be feeling a kind of emptiness when Lizzie II passes on -- and no, I'm not british.

I was just wondering everyone's opinions were of monarchies were! :)

I actually kind of like our monarchy (i live in the UK); it kind of gives a little bit more celebrity culture to drool over lol, even though I believe in equality of everybody and all that stuff... :D

So what do you think?
Depends on the context (surprise, surprise). My opinion of the Nepali monarchy isn't particularly positive, whereas my opinion of the (very slightly) less stuffy monarchies in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, and the reformist monarchy in Bhutan, is better. I've no objection to the existence of a constitutional monarchy, so long as power lies strictly in elected democratic government, out of principle.

Having said that, I'm not particularly fond of the British monarchy, although both reforming it and abolishing it open quite a can of worms. I'd like to see it taxed, made fully transparent, drop the aristocratic privileges, drop the stuffiness, smile a bit, drop Charles and just make it a bit more in touch. If the monarchs won't let that happen, then it's time for a republic.

As in the Guards regiments? They'd undoubtedly be doing that anyway, with or without the monarchy. There are numerous Presidential guards across the world who wander about in stupid gear.

Actually, as their job is to protect the monarchy, they probably wouldn't.

Actually, as their job is to protect the monarchy, they probably wouldn't.
They'd probably just swap monarchy with presidency/prime ministery/lord protector instead.

Militaries appear to have a need to march up and down wearing a variety of anachronistic gear.

The Tories might do something about that, but I doubt it. They'll probably be content with the fact that Bliar brought in a shed load of reforms and laws they were itching to bring in, but as New "Labour" did it during their terms in power, it had the added bonus of the Tories being able to bitch and whine insincerly about it, making it look like they were on the people's, rather than rich toffs, side.I have the sneaking suspicion that that wasn't a typo.

...then you'll be happy to hear that the nepalese voted against keeping it a monarchy. After the 2008 elections, they won't have a king anymore.

She seems to be the best possible candidate for the throne at the moment, miles better than bloody Charles, who sees fit to constantly send politicians letters "advising" them to do what he thinks best and also is a massive proponent of homopathy and all that alternative crap.

the Queen actually shares his views on this which is odd considering how old she is

Actually, as their job is to protect the monarchy, they probably wouldn't.

I've always wondered what the military would do in such a situation, though I do know a guy who nearly shot the Queen anyway (he was on guard duty) if everyone sits in a circle I will tell this tale

the Queen actually shares his views on this which is odd considering how old she is

Actually, it shows just how old she is. Unlike most people she never converted to things like germ theory or the usefulness of cutting people open with knives.

I understand that the monarchy is "symbolic", but why have a national symbol representing arbitrary power and hereditary privilege? Are those really your national values?

I think the Queen should be symbolically beheaded. Replace her at the last moment with an effigy or something, and let the monarchy end there.

Damn, I meant homeopathy. I knew it was a bloody typo, I just couldn't remember the correct spelling.

But, Monsieur Power, I would indeed like to know your tale.

Actually, it shows just how old she is. Unlike most people she never converted to things like germ theory or the usefulness of cutting people open with knives.

I hear she never received a good education either, which explains all the tacky crystal

But, Monsieur Power, I would indeed like to know your tale.

back in ye olde times of 2004 a member of the Guards regiment was on duty at one of the Queens many country retreats.

He was walking leisurely just checking out along the woods of the huge property (to kill reporters and such) when a range rover flies out of nowhere straight for him skidding to a halt a few feet away from his now heavily soiled position he had taken his rifle off the safety and was about to shoot the hell out of this probably terrorist vehicle...

when out steps her Majesty (a veteran truck driver of World war II) who promptly gives him a good earful about getting in her way :D

Any monarchy is only as good or bad as the monarch.

I find it rather pointless. They do very little of use to the country and live in untaxed splendour (though the same could be said of lots of rich families). But would an elected figurehead make much of a difference?

Im Welsh...so the Monarchy has never had the same appeal to me...past Monarchs strangled the life out of the celtic regions and bad blood runs deep...besides...they are just germans in disguise ;)

useless. They cost way to much money and don't really do anything good. The money spent on them could a lot better be used, saving children from preventable diseases or something like that. But it could be worse, they could actually have power :eek: fortunately we're past that stage.

Although in the case of the UK, they generate revenue through slob tourism from the United States and increased land values near the royal palace. Thus you are potentially churning a profit, and if not, there's always a marketing campaign!

The only use for a monarch is to test the sharpness of the guillotine blade.
(No, I don't believe in the death penalty.)

I think the Queen should be symbolically beheaded. Replace her at the last moment with an effigy or something, and let the monarchy end there.Heh.

There is a monarchy in Morocco which is basically my second home country. I believe it is actually best for Morocco to be run under a benevolent monarch as it has now. I think there would be to much in fighting if there was democracy.

It all depends on if the people are happy.

If that's your standard, then shouldn't you be a democrat?

Monarchy is OK. Communism is OK. Democracy is OK. Fascism is OK. It all depends on if the people are happy. Who are we to judge what is best for another country?;)

Voltaire, Herman Melville, and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said it best:

Independent of my love for freedom, I still would prefer to live under a lion's paw than under the teeth of a thousand rats who are my fellow citizens.

Better to be secure under one king, than exposed to violence from twenty millions of monarchs, though oneself be one of them.

[T]he rule of 999 people over one is more stable, less subject to change, than the rule of one over 999. The one can always be assassinated; majorities are never exterminated, only minorities, by the majorities.

Both Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Kuehnelt-Leddihn offer convincing arguments (in Democracy: The God that Failed and Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot respectively) - backed up by abundant evidence - that monarchy is much preferrable to democracy (even though Hoppe is not a fan of monarchy).

If that's your standard, then shouldn't you be a democrat?

I consider myself a Conservabel.

(No, I don't believe in the death penalty.)

Except for people whose political views differ from your own, you mean.

Leftists are always quick to condemn executing people like rapists and murderers, but have no problem putting "fascists," monarchs, and other opponents to death.

Except for people whose political views differ from your own, you mean.

That's not what he said.

Leftists are always quick to condemn executing people like rapists and murderers, but have no problem putting "fascists," monarchs, and other opponents to death.

For an alleged "libertarian", you seem very fond of collectivism... what else is guilt by association?

Hint: we do not have a hive mind.

:rolleyes:

Both Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Kuehnelt-Leddihn offer convincing arguments (in Democracy: The God that Failed and Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot respectively) - backed up by abundant evidence - that monarchy is much preferrable to democracy (even though Hoppe is not a fan of monarchy).

If these arguments are true, then how come the largest, most successful, most technologically advanced, and most politically stable country in the world is a representative democracy, not to mention one of the few nations in the world that has not significantly changed it's system of government in the past 225 years. This said, theoretically any form of government would be okay if the people are happy in a way that will last, but only under a handful of circumstances will a country that does not have at least some democratic trappings and some electoral accountabillity be a happy country, especially in a lasting way.

A bunch of rubbish.

That's not what he said.

He has no problem with killing monarchs.

For an alleged "libertarian", you seem very fond of collectivism... what else is guilt by association?

I support feudalism, aristocracy, and the complete privatization of everything. How is that collectivist?

I support feudalism, aristocracy, and the complete privatization of everything. How is that collectivist?

He's saying the guilt by association you're perpetrating (saying that "leftists" all support whatever silliness you said) is collectivist, as in you're lumping them all into one group and not looking at them as individuals, which would ostensibly be the more libertarian way of thinking.

He's saying the guilt by association you're perpetrating (saying that "leftists" all support whatever silliness you said) is collectivist, as in you're lumping them all into one group and not looking at them as individuals, which would ostensibly be the more libertarian way of thinking.

Oh. It was stupid of me, I'll admit that.

I support feudalism, aristocracy, and the complete privatization of everything. How is that collectivist?

Well, it's not collectivist, but it's not individualistic either, at least not the first two parts of it.

Oh. It was stupid of me, I'll admit that.

Fair enough.

Well, it's not collectivist, but it's not individualistic either, at least not the first two parts of it.

How not?

He has no problem with killing monarchs.

Then why mention that he doesn't believe in the death penalty? His parenthetical statement is pretty clearly meant to clarify that he means the first part tongue-in-cheek.

I support feudalism, aristocracy, and the complete privatization of everything. How is that collectivist?

It's not; it's perfectly in line with the objective of preserving private privilege and power at the expense of the freedom of the general population, which, while perhaps one of the most abhorrent objectives imaginable, is not collectivist.

Your collectivist thinking processes are expressed in your willingness to lump together all leftists as espousing doctrines that have no intrinsic connection to leftism, but rather are only related by your shared dislike.

Then why mention that he doesn't believe in the death penalty? His parenthetical statement is pretty clearly meant to clarify that he means the first part tongue-in-cheek.

It's sometimes hard to tell if someone is being tongue-in-cheek over the internet.

It's not; it's perfectly in line with the objective of preserving private privilege and power at the expense of the freedom of the general population, which, while perhaps one of the most abhorrent objectives imaginable, is not collectivist.

At the expense of what freedom?

People would have the complete freedom to do whatever they wish, provided they weren't violating anyone's rights. People would advance purely on merit, not through political patronage, and, being a true meritocracy, only those who were truly fit would rule - rather than those who were popular.

Your collectivist thinking processes are expressed in your willingness to lump together all leftists as espousing doctrines that have no intrinsic connection to leftism, but rather are only related by your shared dislike.

That's not collectivist, that's stupid. I say stupid things all the time. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's not any less true. Do I usually turn around and realize that what I said is stupid, and retract it? Yes, but: A) The damage is done; B) More stupid things will be said in the future.

At the expense of what freedom?

The freedom to live in the society we choose for ourselves, not the one imposed from above.

People would advance purely on merit, not through political patronage,

Um... unless you're redefining "feudalism", using "aristocracy" according to the old definition, and somehow managing to ensure a classless market society, not even remotely.

and, being a true meritocracy, only those who were truly fit would rule

There is no one fit to rule over others. That is why a decent society involves us ruling ourselves.

Is slavery justifiable if the master is "fit" enough?

The freedom to live in the society we choose for ourselves, not the one imposed from above.

Which is why I also support the right of secession.

Um... unless you're redefining "feudalism", using "aristocracy" according to the old definition, and somehow managing to ensure a classless market society, not even remotely.

I don't want a classless society.

There is no one fit to rule over others. That is why a decent society involves us ruling ourselves.

Most people (including myself) are too stupid to rule over ourselves.

Is slavery justifiable if the master is "fit" enough?

Slavery is never justified. Period.

Great,... gives infrastructure bonuses while avoiding environmental effects...

...what? Wrong game?

Oh,... actually I don't really like having a monarch, since I don't identify with them.

If these arguments are true, then how come the largest, most successful, most technologically advanced, and most politically stable country in the world is a representative democracy, not to mention one of the few nations in the world that has not significantly changed it's system of government in the past 225 years.

2007 minus 225 doesn't equal 1861 ;-)

How not?

Because rather then looking at people as individuals, you are looking at them as last names.

By the way, I apologize for two posts in a row but somehow I didn't see this one:

2007 minus 225 doesn't equal 1861 ;-)

But see, the electoral system and the process is the same, it's just that now more people are included in it, and as such, I don't think it's a major difference in the system so much as the society.

But see, the electoral system and the process is the same, it's just that now more people are included in it, and as such, I don't think it's a major difference in the system so much as the society.

That part didn't actually change until 1865, when the 13th Amendment was passed. I'd say the real fundamental change was in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed.

That part didn't actually change until 1865, when the 13th Amendment was passed. I'd say the real fundamental change was in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed.

Due Process was a change, but in comparison to other changes occured by most governments within the same period, like the effective scrapping of the House of Lords by the English, I don't think it's all that big. It's almost the exception that proves the rule.

Which is why I also support the right of secession.

When some lord declares he wants to secede?

The right to secession is meaningless without democracy. Its entire foundation is self-determination.

I don't want a classless society.

Meritocracy is inconsistent with a classed society.

Most people (including myself) are too stupid to rule over ourselves.

Ah, paternalism. How libertarian of you.

Naturally, of course, it is magically guaranteed that our benevolent masters, unlike us among the pathetic masses, will have our best interests at heart and the wisdom to pursue them properly. :rolleyes:

Slavery is never justified. Period.

What, aren't we too stupid to not be owned?

If that's your standard, then shouldn't you be a democrat?

I very much doubt the average Iraqi enjoys his current democracy very much. Or the average Afghani. Arguing about the forms of government for the average happiness of people is retarded. People can be genuinely happy under any form of government, so long as the ones doing the running are genuinely concerned about both the nation and its people.

Just because you're a dictatorship, communist, pastafarianist, Goofballian or any form of non-democratic government doesn't mean that you get a magic oppression field that saps the happiness out of the people.

If these arguments are true, then how come the largest, most successful, most technologically advanced, and most politically stable country in the world is a representative democracy, not to mention one of the few nations in the world that has not significantly changed it's system of government in the past 225 years.


225 years is not a good indicator of how stable a form government is, especially when there have been governments that have lasted much longer than that.

As for the following attributes, size can be attributed to superior firepower, and much backstabbing among the locals in exchange for territory gain, as well as plain old conquest. None of these are good indicators of why a democracy is more preferable. It's not like other forms of governments didn't go about seizing big chunks of territory.

Technological advance is debatable. Granted, steam power changed a lot of things, as did oil which superseded it, but the past 60+ years of technological advance were driven under the threat of war, which has always been the best fertilizer for innovation, yet never actually escalating to a direct war which would destroy said innovation.

I have quite the irrational fondness of monarchies :)

I was just wondering everyone's opinions were of monarchies were! :)

I actually kind of like our monarchy (i live in the UK); it kind of gives a little bit more celebrity culture to drool over lol, even though I believe in equality of everybody and all that stuff... :D

So what do you think?

I like their pretty little wings!

Due Process was a change, but in comparison to other changes occured by most governments within the same period, like the effective scrapping of the House of Lords by the English, I don't think it's all that big. It's almost the exception that proves the rule.
Can you say "British"?

Sorry guys, but monarchy had the nails in it's coffin well and truly nailed down by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau quite a while ago now, the only examples are some rich private citizens in Europe, otherwise politically impotent, and some examples in the reactionary segments of the Middle East, thanking God of course that Michel Afluk was born.

Sorry guys, but monarchy had the nails in it's coffin well and truly nailed down by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau quite a while ago now...
Except Hobbes and Locke would support a monarch, as long as they were abiding by the two philosophers' respective roles and duties of a sovereign.

We have already had our little experiment with being a Republic

We have already had our little experiment with being a Republic
And so have many others.

I understand that the monarchy is "symbolic", but why have a national symbol representing arbitrary power and hereditary privilege? Are those really your national values?
To a lot of people, the answer is an unfortunate 'yes'.

I like monarchies. Adds character, it does.

And the sooner Canada recognizes their true Monarch, Michael Von Mikesburg IV, the sooner we can all be happy.

We have already had our little experiment with being a Republic
Quite.

We'll have our monarchy, thanks. At least they're past the stage where they consider themselves our intellectual and moral betters, unlike Cromwell and his particularly stupid son who, after winning the Civil War, then went on to remove parliament after discovering that they were indeed a bunch of lazy fuckwits, and then banned fun. Good times, eh?

I say "no" to monarchy. It doesn't make any sense to have someone rule a country only because he or she is a descendant of the previous ruler... And constitutional monarchies are not much more better. What's the poin of having a figurhead family, which doesn't have any real power?! Monarchies are old-fashioned, and usually very expensive.

The freedom to live in the society we choose for ourselves, not the one imposed from above.
One never really gets the choice to live in the society which one wants to live in. Society is always something imposed from above. Yeah, fine, you can vote and other such pointless shite, but if you lose the vote, then you're getting something imposed from above regardless.

Incidentally, the monarchy in Europe doesn't really impose anything. They're a cultural figurehead, and basically sit about not getting up to anything much, and generally being quite useful when called upon.

See Belgium, in which the king stepped in to insure that there's some level of government, after democracy has failed spectacularly to do anything useful.
Um... unless you're redefining "feudalism", using "aristocracy" according to the old definition, and somehow managing to ensure a classless market society, not even remotely.
Quite.
There is no one fit to rule over others.
I would completely disagree on that one.

If we're talking about having our every step dictated, then yes, I agree, but we need leaders in society, so that people don't have to worry about everything that goes on in their lives. Taking wise decisions takes a lot of time to do properly. Can't really take that kind of time out of everyone's schedule, or nothing gets done.
That is why a decent society involves us ruling ourselves.
There have been very, very few absolutist leaderships, and I'd agree they were all bad. However anarchism has also been shown to have been nothing particularly special. A halfway house is the most sensible option.
Is slavery justifiable if the master is "fit" enough?
No, but then is anarchy suitable without people being fit enough?

At least they're past the stage where they consider themselves our intellectual and moral betters
And that includes Charles 'kids aspire beyond their means' Windsor, right?

And that includes Charles 'kids aspire beyond their means' Windsor, right?
That man's living in a little Merrie England of his own.

Damn shame Cromwell didn't accept the crown, I say.

I say "no" to monarchy.
Aww :(
It doesn't make any sense to have someone rule a country only because he or she is a descendant of the previous ruler...
Meh. They're of not too bad breeding, if slightly webbed of foot.
And constitutional monarchies are not much more better. What's the poin of having a figurhead family, which doesn't have any real power?!
Because when things go extremely pear-shaped, they can step in and sort things out.
Monarchies are old-fashioned
There's nothing new under the sun.
and usually very expensive.
Ours open up literally billions of pounds' worth of its own properties for the general public to look at, and generates a few million pounds' worth of money for the economy through tourism ;)

There is no one fit to rule over others.


Depends on your definition of fit. And I very much doubt you live in an anarchy.


That is why a decent society involves us ruling ourselves.


Silly American and your silly perceptions that you actually rule yourself. You are ruled by a group of political and economic elite who's whims dictate the rules that govern you while giving you the illusion of choice.

There will never be a society that rules itself as a whole. Not a human one anyway.

And that includes Charles 'kids aspire beyond their means' Windsor, right?
Give a dog a bad name and all that.
That man's living in a little Merrie England of his own.
Not really, no.
Damn shame Cromwell didn't accept the crown, I say.
Not really.

Since he banned football, fun on Christmas, doing anything on Sunday apart from going to church, ran England and Wales as a military dictatorship and had even less accountability than the king he replaced, as well as having an extremely incompetent son who ran the country so badly that we went back to a monarchy anyway, I don't really think that having his family line ruling the country would have been a particularly good idea.

We have already had our little experiment with being a Republic

Hardly a good example of attempting a Republic. Other countries have had a lot better success. At least if it happened now it would be by referendum (though I would insist on it requiring a sizeable majority i.e. >70% or something), and we wouldn't end up with a Puritan military general turned dictator. We'd have a politician instead :D So much better.

Then again, a president serves little else other than as a figurehead and a balance of power, would the voting public really care enough to vote every 4 years or so, on top of the current elections. I think we need to reduce the royal family's wealth and luxury, but a whole governmental reorganisation seems a little pointless.

Ours open up literally billions of pounds' worth of its own properties for the general public to look at, and generates a few million pounds' worth of money for the economy through tourism ;)
Indeed. One of the most common criticisms of the House of Windsor is that they cost the British taxpayer a rather large amount of money, but a recent study (to my detriment, I can't remember the source) came to the conclusion that they actually put a lot more money in than they take out, especially when you factor the Duchy of Cornwall into the situation. Although, personally, I'll be damned if I give Charles any of my money.
Meh. They're of not too bad breeding, if slightly webbed of foot.
:D

There will never be a society that rules itself as a whole. Not a human one anyway.

Surely is must be possible? If enough honest, determined people decided they would work together till the very end and became an independent anarchic state would it really not work at all? :confused:

Surely is must be possible? If enough honest, determined people decided they would work together till the very end and became an independent anarchic state would it really not work at all? :confused:
No, because people don't work together, and the kinds of people who are determined about any political cause never want to be each others' slaves.

Ours open up literally billions of pounds' worth of its own properties for the general public to look at, and generates a few million pounds' worth of money for the economy through tourism ;)
Possibly their only redeeming factor.

Give a dog a bad name and all that.
That's monarchy for you...

Possibly their only redeeming factor.
Well since they don't really do anything negative, that makes them a positive thing overall, no?
That's monarchy for you...
Not really, it's more "Kings or Kings in waiting called Charles" for you.

Surely is must be possible? If enough honest, determined people decided they would work together till the very end and became an independent anarchic state would it really not work at all? :confused:

Nope because we are all different and we are all only after looking after our own interests.

Surely is must be possible? If enough honest, determined people decided they would work together till the very end and became an independent anarchic state would it really not work at all? :confused:

Anarchist society's perfectly possible. It just can't work on the 60-million-people level for a modern society. It's why Athenian democracy worked: there were only a few thousand of them.

Well since they don't really do anything negative, that makes them a positive thing overall, no?
In my books, 'annoying privileged aristocratic snobs' count as negative. They're just as dysfunctional a family as anybody else, just with a history of good breeding and HM Treasury as their personal piggy bank when Prince Andrew fancies jetting off to play golf. Toffery just gets on my nerves, and they're just as good at wasting money as making it. Hence why I said the monarchy needs to be brought out of the C19th rather than abolished outright.

Not really, it's more "Kings or Kings in waiting called Charles" for you.
Mah. Same difference.

In my books, 'annoying privileged aristocratic snobs' count as negative.
Since they never really do anything, and try to keep themselves out of the press, that's not really much of a problem.
They're just as dysfunctional a family as anybody else, just with a history of good breeding
So?
and HM Treasury as their personal piggy bank when Prince Andrew fancies jetting off to play golf.
Nope. They get an allowance and no more without them putting an effort in to get more.
Toffery just gets on my nerves
I'm much the same, but only with outspoken toffery. Since they're very rarely in the press apart from "Prince Harry gets pissed with his mates, minor shock ensues", I don't see why that's such a large problem.
and they're just as good at wasting money as making it.
The statistics say otherwise.
Hence why I said the monarchy needs to be brought out of the C19th rather than abolished outright.
Nah. They're fine as is, and since they bring money into the economy, let them be.
Mah. Same difference.
Not really, no.

Since he banned football, fun on Christmas, doing anything on Sunday apart from going to church, ran England and Wales as a military dictatorship and had even less accountability than the king he replaced, as well as having an extremely incompetent son who ran the country so badly that we went back to a monarchy anyway, I don't really think that having his family line ruling the country would have been a particularly good idea.
Quite, though the above hardly amounts to another family ruling the country, even if said family now has no power.

Since they never really do anything, and try to keep themselves out of the press, that's not really much of a problem.
They only try and keep themselves out the press when there's anything bad to hear. Diana was quite happy to jump in front of the camera, as are the rest of them, when there's something good to show.

So?
If I want to watch dysfunctional, annoying people get into scandal and bitch about each other, I watch EastEnders, not the Royal Family. They're hardly the shining example of what we should all aim to be and embody, are they?

Nope. They get an allowance and no more without them putting an effort in to get more.
If that allowance gives Andrew the ability to buy £20,000 plane tickets to get to St. Andrews, I'd say there's better places for the Treasury to put money than their own personal 'allowance'.

I'm much the same, but only with outspoken toffery. Since they're very rarely in the press apart from "Prince Harry gets pissed with his mates, minor shock ensues", I don't see why that's such a large problem.
She's our Head of State. I can't think of anything less private. And no, I can't think of anything interesting about Prince Harry either. It's means he's (relatively) normal, for heaven's sake.

The statistics say otherwise.
They may well be profitable, but that doesn't mean they waste a whole lot too.

Nah. They're fine as is, and since they bring money into the economy, let them be.
They really, really need to cut a lot of crap, and waste, first. Just because they make money as they are doesn't make them untouchable. Hell, if we cut the waste and clingers on, we might be able to extract a bit more.

Not really, no.
Matter of opinion, then, I suppose.

Not really.

Since he banned football, fun on Christmas, doing anything on Sunday apart from going to church, ran England and Wales as a military dictatorship and had even less accountability than the king he replaced, as well as having an extremely incompetent son who ran the country so badly that we went back to a monarchy anyway, I don't really think that having his family line ruling the country would have been a particularly good idea.
You know, if I hadn't seen that picture of the Queen watching her really old Queen's Speech, I'd have sworn she'd never smiled in her life.

I very much doubt the average Iraqi enjoys his current democracy very much. Or the average Afghani.

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan is remotely democratic.

One never really gets the choice to live in the society which one wants to live in.

I didn't say anything about "liv in the society which one wants to live in." I referred to having the power to choose for ourselves.

Yeah, fine, you can vote and other such pointless shite, but if you lose the vote, then you're getting something imposed from above regardless.

First, I said "we", not "I"--[I]social self-rule necessarily involves collective self-determination (democracy).

Second, losing a vote in no way denies the freedom of the loser... as long as the loser is permitted full participation.

Incidentally, the monarchy in Europe doesn't really impose anything.

That's not my argument against preserving constitutional monarchy. That's my argument against "libertarian" monarchists, who tend not to merely advocate ceremonial monarchs.

If we're talking about having our every step dictated, then yes, I agree, but we need leaders in society, so that people don't have to worry about everything that goes on in their lives.

There's a difference between a ruler and a leader... and between someone tasked with making day-to-day decisions and someone granted full-out political power.

But to return to the point, for the moment I am defending democracy, not advocating anarchy, so such distinctions are not even important. We can have elected leaders on the representative model without being monarchist.

Depends on your definition of fit.

Well, yes... if your conception of "fit" is, say, "capable of greatly enriching himself", I'm sure you could find plenty of candidates.

Silly American and your silly perceptions that you actually rule yourself.

Your assumptions about my political opinions do not hold.

You are ruled by a group of political and economic elite who's whims dictate the rules that govern you while giving you the illusion of choice.

So?

There will never be a society that rules itself as a whole.

Why not?

Nope because we are all different

That's the best thing imaginable for anarchy.

If everyone is different, the possibility of one large group seizing control is minimized.

and we are all only after looking after our own interests.

First, do you really believe that? Does anyone you know make political decisions on that basis alone?

Second, so what if we are? What difference does it make for anarchy?

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan is remotely democratic.
I think that was probably his point. The countries are said to be democratic because they've had regimes installed and propped up by America, the UK and their allies.

I reject all unearned wealth and privilege, whether that of an American capitalist, a "Communist" dictator, or holdover from pre-democratic Europe like the monarchy.

I reject all unearned wealth and privilege, whether that of an American capitalist, a "Communist" dictator, or holdover from pre-democratic Europe like the monarchy.
Letila resurfaces!

Or maybe you were never away...

Neither Iraq or Afghanistan is remotely democratic.

I challenge you to find a country that is fully democratic in the history of the entire human race. Not the pseudo democracies that have popped up before that locked out some particular demographic, or the farce that is representative democracy.


Well, yes... if your conception of "fit" is, say, "capable of greatly enriching himself", I'm sure you could find plenty of candidates.


The specification was your idea of what constituted fit. Not mine.


Your assumptions about my political opinions do not hold.


Fair enough. Your political opinion was implied, but not necessarily so.


So?


So it means little really, unless one starts comparing standards of democracy from nation to nation. Or perhaps tries trumpeting a model of democracy that actually isn't.


Why not?

Because of human nature. Or perhaps, pack animal species behavior. Humanity hasn't really left its roots behind after all. There is still a, perhaps instinctive, need for leadership amongst most humans, someone to provide guidance in some form or another. Governance is merely a more complicated form of pack leadership.

Democracy, in its purest form, is the antithesis to governance. In fact, I would postulate that the ideal form of democracy runs contrary to human nature itself, a structure that would fracture once put through the stresses that is human society and quickly be subverted to a more conventional pyramid shaped power structure.

Power does not flow downwards. Power will always accumulate in the hands of the most ruthless. Always. And the ruthless do not share. That is the nature of human society. Of human nature. Even if one has power, if one is not ruthless, not quick enough, one will inevitably lose it to one who is more ruthless.

I challenge you to find a country that is fully democratic in the history of the entire human race.

"Fully"? None. It is a matter of degree.

The specification was your idea of what constituted fit. Not mine.

No one is worthy of ruling. No one has the wisdom or the benevolence to be legitimately tasked with ruling over millions of other people. The only worthy end of governance--to construct the society the population would choose for itself--is inconsistent with such an arrangement of power.

Because of human nature. Or perhaps, pack animal species behavior. Humanity hasn't really left its roots behind after all.

What, its "roots" as radically egalitarian foragers?

Centralized power is not only not natural, but seems necessarily unnatural; it can only arise long after much of human nature has been suppressed by civilization.

There is still a, perhaps instinctive, need for leadership amongst most humans, someone to provide guidance in some form or another.

"Guidance" is not power.

I can listen to someone without being forced to listen.

Power will always accumulate in the hands of the most ruthless. Always.

So all existing political systems are essentially indistinguishable? Really? Because it seems to me that some are far less "ruthless" than others....

A monarch does have the advantage that they have to have a strategy for their reign, rather than just latching on to whichever issue is currently in vogue, trying to ensure re-election, etc.

I like monarchies.. and the thought of Denmark turned into a Republic makes my skin crawl :(

A monarch does have the advantage that they have to have a strategy for their reign, rather than just latching on to whichever issue is currently in vogue, trying to ensure re-election, etc.
Gyanendra would agree.

Gyanendra would agree.
Though perhaps not his late family...

Though perhaps not his late family...
Or himself, considering that his country is probably going to abolish him later on this year, and about time too.

Or himself, considering that his country is probably going to abolish him later on this year, and about time too.
Let's just hope the Maoists don't try and take over.

The whole affair is just utterly bizarre.

Gyanendra would agree.

I assume this is supposed to be some kind of ad hominem, but I can't be bothered to read Gyanendra's wikipedia article.

I'm all in favor, assuming of course that I am the monarch

That part didn't actually change until 1865, when the 13th Amendment was passed. I'd say the real fundamental change was in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed.

But see, the electoral system and the process is the same, it's just that now more people are included in it, and as such, I don't think it's a major difference in the system so much as the society.

Actually, I was referring that until that point the United States consisted of individual nations willingly forming a union - after which they were not. It's like saying that the EU is a country now. It's not yet but may some day be considered as such.

Additionally - I wouldn't call most nations in the midst of a civil war stable (exceptions being situations like China/Taiwan or Korea)

"Fully"? None. It is a matter of degree.

So then there are no nations that can claim to BE democratic. A bit like it, but that is not being it.


No one is worthy of ruling. No one has the wisdom or the benevolence to be legitimately tasked with ruling over millions of other people. The only worthy end of governance--to construct the society the population would choose for itself--is inconsistent with such an arrangement of power.


Your statement is inconsistent with actual governance. Also, if no one has the wisdom to be legitimately tasked with ruling, then it stands to reason that there are no legitimate governments. Not even the purest form of democracy.


What, its "roots" as radically egalitarian foragers?


Pfft. Egalitarian. Yeah right. Pack animal behavior. There is always an alpha, or a matriarch. Find me an example of society that had no such power structure, where the final say goes to one, or a small group.


Centralized power is not only not natural, but seems necessarily unnatural; it can only arise long after much of human nature has been suppressed by civilization.

Centralized power IS natural. I task you to observe any and all forms of animals that form packs/troops/flocks/etc. There is a pecking order in each and every one of them, with only one at the very top of it.

Your statements that it being unnatural is astoundingly ignorant.


"Guidance" is not power.


Hah! Guidance is not power? Influence is power. Control is power. Guidance is merely another way of saying it. Look at a preacher, a firebrand, any charismatic individual who charms people into following their dictates under the premise of "guidance". Then tell me that isn't power.


I can listen to someone without being forced to listen.


So?


So all existing political systems are essentially indistinguishable? Really? Because it seems to me that some are far less "ruthless" than others....

So? Different forms of governance, but the objectives are the same. Some rely on more brute force to maintain order, while others make the masses too fat and lazy to care. Others whip them up with emotional sentiment and some give them the illusion of choice to keep them occupied.

In the end, they are all no different. Methods of control wherein power collates at the very top.

So then there are no nations that can claim to BE democratic.

That doesn't follow. You're shifting the goalposts. First you want a nation that is fully democratic. Now you deny that any nation can be democratic at all.

Your statement is inconsistent with actual governance. Also, if no one has the wisdom to be legitimately tasked with ruling, then it stands to reason that there are no legitimate governments. Not even the purest form of democracy.

No, because the purest form of democracy doesn't task anyone with ruling over everyone else. That's the point. People rule themselves.

Pfft. Egalitarian.

Go ahead and deny the evidence with stupid cliches if you like. I can't stop you.

Hah! Guidance is not power? Influence is power.

No, it isn't. Influence is just influence. If I convince someone of something, I'm influential, not powerful--anything she does as a consequence is her power, not mine. I haven't subordinated her will to mine; I've just persuaded her to make the same choice I have, perfectly freely.

Control is power.

That's right. Guidance isn't control. A guide does not control the people she guides. They can choose to follow her guidance or reject it.

Guidance is merely another way of saying it. Look at a preacher, a firebrand, any charismatic individual who charms people into following their dictates under the premise of "guidance".

That's interesting phrasing--"under the premise of." So you're not talking about "guidance." You're talking about something masquerading as guidance.

Yeah, that's power. But it's also not guidance.

So? Different forms of governance, but the objectives are the same.

What would convince you otherwise? Is this notion falsifiable at all, or will you just mindlessly try to read "centralized power" into everything you see?

Some rely on more brute force to maintain order, while others make the masses too fat and lazy to care. Others whip them up with emotional sentiment and some give them the illusion of choice to keep them occupied.

But you said that the most ruthless will always rise to the top, didn't you? But clearly some methods there are less ruthless than others. Yet both, you suggest, work for maintaining power structures. So we can, in fact, have progress--we can transcend the ruthlessness of power. We just need to have a society where the best way of maintaining power is by benefiting the population... that is, to move in a democratic direction.

Furthermore, your own approach here shows that you don't really believe concentrated power is natural any more than I do. If it were, then why would you need brute force, or sedation through pleasure, or emotional manipulation, or the illusion of freedom to keep the masses satisfied? Why do you need to coerce or delude them for them to go along? Aren't they supposed to be naturally obedient--not artificially made to be obedient?

They should sell popcorn when Soheran argues. I go nuts for this guy/gal.

Having said that:

"Definitions of power on the Web:

* possession of controlling influence; "the deterrent power of nuclear weapons"; "the power of his love saved her"; "his powerfulness was concealed ...
* (physics) the rate of doing work; measured in watts (= joules/second)
* ability: possession of the qualities (especially mental qualities) required to do something or get something done; "danger heightened his powers of discrimination" "

I'd say that influence qualifies as a form of power. Albeit quite a weak form of power.

I'm not keen on monarchies. I'd rather they be gotten rid of, but as long as the monarch's powerless it's not something that bothers me too much.

The only place for a queen in this day and age is on a cabaret.

They should sell popcorn when Soheran argues. I go nuts for this guy/gal.

Guy. :)

I'd say that influence qualifies as a form of power. Albeit quite a weak form of power.

No, if anything power qualifies as a form of influence. We see this in your first definition: "possession of controlling influence." But the whole point of influence through guidance is that it is not controlling: it is dependent on the other person voluntarily following the guide's advice. (All kinds of influence are, of course, power by the third definition. But to use that definition in the political context is surely equivocation: does (say) physical strength really count as power in the relevant sense, assuming it is not used as a form of coercion?)

You can think of it this way: if I am known for being a wise person and people come to me for advice, I am influential, but not powerful. I may say, "You should do this for such and such a reason," but that reason exists independently of me: I have simply helped them see it.

On the other hand, if I hold a gun to someone's head and say "You should do this because otherwise I will shoot you", I have created the reason artificially. That's exercising power.

The truth, of course, is that the distinctions are not as clear as I might like them to be. If I am known for being a wise person and begin dispensing advice based not on what is wise for the people asking for it, but based on what benefits me most, then it might be argued that I have exercised true power, by exploitation of people's trust. But even then, this power is contingent in an important sense: it depends on people actually trusting me. And if I continue lying and misleading them, that trust is likely to run out.

To use this as an opportunity to return to the broader point, it is true that a society seeking to abolish domination must confront social and cultural power as well as political and economic power, and it is true that all four are antagonistic to democracy. But three points deserve to be made in this regard.

First, we have reason to expect that a more egalitarian society in some respects might translate into others. For instance, under a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and economic power, groups that are subordinated socially, through, say, racism, are no longer subordinated economically as well (because no one is): they thus acquire greater power to reverse their circumstances.

Second, while social and cultural power is perhaps less obvious and "concrete" than economic and political power, in no way does it follow that it is any more natural, or any less open to change. Human social behavior is not a given. Cultures change; we know they do, and we know that one reason they do is as a consequence of liberatory social movements. That is, perhaps, the greatest proof of all that vast inequity in power is not a matter of natural determination: the subordinated are not content to be subordinated, and progress is made in reversing that subordination.

Third, even if it is the case that certain kinds of social and cultural power are embedded in human social relations, whatever formal and institutional equality we create, it does not follow that the struggle for such equality is useless. It is, as I have stressed, a matter of degree: we may not ever be able to achieve perfect democracy, but that does not mean that the ideal of democracy is not something to strive for, and something that can be striven for.

I reckon the above argument would gain a lot if you just left out "economic power" completely, considering it's a lot more like influence than like actual coercive power.

But I'm not hijacking this one, so go ahead.

That doesn't follow. You're shifting the goalposts. First you want a nation that is fully democratic. Now you deny that any nation can be democratic at all.

Perhaps I am not being clear here. Let me put it in context. 1 and 0. On and off. Dead or alive. Clear states no? You can be near dead, but that isn't dead.

Just like you can be nearly democratic, but not actually democratic.


No, because the purest form of democracy doesn't task anyone with ruling over everyone else. That's the point. People rule themselves.


Which doesn't happen. Except for maybe hermits, loners and other people who have disconnected themselves from society.


Go ahead and deny the evidence with stupid cliches if you like. I can't stop you.

Tell me, what does the term egalitarian mean to you? And how would it apply to primitive hunter gatherer tribes?


No, it isn't. Influence is just influence. If I convince someone of something, I'm influential, not powerful--anything she does as a consequence is her power, not mine. I haven't subordinated her will to mine; I've just persuaded her to make the same choice I have, perfectly freely.


By that standard, the Vatican is powerless. Every single charismatic person who managed to persuade the masses to do their bidding is powerless. This is ridiculous. Someone who willingly subordinates to another is hardly any different than someone who is forced to subordinate to that same person insofar as power is concerned.

Your hair splitting of differences is superfluous to the state of whether one wields power or not.


That's right. Guidance isn't control. A guide does not control the people she guides. They can choose to follow her guidance or reject it.


Wrong. A guide should not control people. That doesn't mean they don't. I don't speak of trail guides or anything of that sort. I speak of the ones who the ones who attempt to guide nations, masses of people and others that rely on faith, or fear, or just plain apathy, to subjugate others.

Maybe guidance was the wrong word to pick. I will admit that much.


What would convince you otherwise? Is this notion falsifiable at all, or will you just mindlessly try to read "centralized power" into everything you see?


Find me a government where every citizen, wherein citizen didn't mean a specific subset of the population, actively participates in the governance of the nation as a whole. Where the population is strongly tied into the government as a whole, not bound to special interest groups or to charismatic individuals who tell them what to do.

Find me that, and you will have proven false my statement.


But you said that the most ruthless will always rise to the top, didn't you? But clearly some methods there are less ruthless than others.


Then you are clearly misunderstanding what it means to be ruthless. Ruthless doesn't mean you solve all your problems by killing everyone who opposes you. That's one way of going about it, but hardly the only way. Ruthless means being able to do what it takes to get what you want, removing whatever obstacles are in your way without compunction or pity.

So what if a bullet in the head is replaced by smear campaigns and blackmail? That does not make you any less ruthless. It merely means you have decided to take a path that has less negative consequences if caught.


Yet both, you suggest, work for maintaining power structures. So we can, in fact, have progress--we can transcend the ruthlessness of power. We just need to have a society where the best way of maintaining power is by benefiting the population... that is, to move in a democratic direction.


Short of rewriting core human behavior, I do not see how that is possible.


Furthermore, your own approach here shows that you don't really believe concentrated power is natural any more than I do. If it were, then why would you need brute force, or sedation through pleasure, or emotional manipulation, or the illusion of freedom to keep the masses satisfied? Why do you need to coerce or delude them for them to go along? Aren't they supposed to be naturally obedient--not artificially made to be obedient?

Let me put it this way. Observe a wolf pack. How does leadership of the pack come about? By force. How does that leadership change? Again, by force, the loser cast out from the pack.

Is the power concentrated in that leadership? Insofar as to what power such a pack has, yes. Does the leadership gain more priviledges than the rest of the pack? Again, yes.

Just because humanity has more methods of changing leadership that do not require force does not mean it is any less natural for them to concentrate power on the top.

Your argument that because there are measures to pacify and make the masses fall in line as negating the natural flow of power are also false. It is natural for those without to desire power. Just as there are challenges to the pack leader, there are also those who desire to challenge the ones in power.

Does that make the measures to make the masses obedient unnatural? From a behavioral aspect, no. Power is taken, and power is held. But does power flow downwards? No. Do those who seize power do so with the intention of spreading it to the rest? I cannot speak for what lies in their minds, but based on their actions, no.

Also, I ask you this. If centralized power was an unnatural state of governance, why has it always been the most prevalent and common form of governance then? Surely if it was unnatural as you call it, once the old order has collapsed, as has happened so often throughout history, surely a more decentralized form of governance would take place. Perhaps it even does, for a short while. So then why does it collate again into a centralized power?

It would appear to me that a monarchy is a fundamentally better system than a republic because it has less chance to be abused by the people as a whole (and by that, i refer to the vast politically ignorant masses that seem to constitute the population of most Western nations). Under a Republic, I ask, what means is there to restrain the popular will from trampling all over minority rights? None whatsoever, because if a government so wishes (as has been done in the United States certainly, and in other so-called republics elsewhere), it can do whatever it likes as long as it has popular mandate enough to ram it through the government.

Whereas under a monarchy, at least in theory, one has at least one brake (if not two, if an unelected upper house is present), on the popular will by forcing legislation to be examined at a more sober, less-politically charged level. Such is, I feel, the best way to reconcile the need for popular participation in government with the need to ensure that everyone's rights are protected.

Now does this mean I support a completely absolutist monarchy a la France from the Fronde through the Revolution? No, I do not. But I do believe that the monarch must be able to exercise some power so that he or she may carry out his or her coronation oath to defend his or her people against all possible threats, both internal and external.

Also, some food for thought for you from Maitre Voltaire:

"I would prefer to obey a good lion, born stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own kind."

I'm English and would personally love to see nothing more than to have the royal family kicked out onto the street and their wealth distributed out amongst people who actually deserve it.

(NOTE: Depending on how drunk I am at the time, this point of view can change from being "Just let there be one more monarch, and then after that, abolish it, but give the remaining royals a headstart and help to adjust to normal life." to "GUILLOTINE!!!")

It would appear to me that a monarchy is a fundamentally better system than a republic because it has less chance to be abused by the people as a whole (and by that, i refer to the vast politically ignorant masses that seem to constitute the population of most Western nations). Under a Republic, I ask, what means is there to restrain the popular will from trampling all over minority rights? None whatsoever, because if a government so wishes (as has been done in the United States certainly, and in other so-called republics elsewhere), it can do whatever it likes as long as it has popular mandate enough to ram it through the government.

Whereas under a monarchy, at least in theory, one has at least one brake (if not two, if an unelected upper house is present), on the popular will by forcing legislation to be examined at a more sober, less-politically charged level. Such is, I feel, the best way to reconcile the need for popular participation in government with the need to ensure that everyone's rights are protected.

Now does this mean I support a completely absolutist monarchy a la France from the Fronde through the Revolution? No, I do not. But I do believe that the monarch must be able to exercise some power so that he or she may carry out his or her coronation oath to defend his or her people against all possible threats, both internal and external.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm English and would personally love to see nothing more than to have the royal family kicked out onto the street and their wealth distributed out amongst people who actually deserve it.

(NOTE: Depending on how drunk I am at the time, this point of view can change from being "Just let there be one more monarch, and then after that, abolish it, but give the remaining royals a headstart and help to adjust to normal life." to "GUILLOTINE!!!")

And replace it with what? A republic that would probably be even more corrupt and kleptomaniacal than the current government?

Actually, I was referring that until that point the United States consisted of individual nations willingly forming a union - after which they were not. It's like saying that the EU is a country now. It's not yet but may some day be considered as such.

I'd agree on the year then as 1861 is when the Maryland Legislature was arrested and the state put under direct Federal control.

And replace it with what? A republic that would probably be even more corrupt and kleptomaniacal than the current government?
Or no different, like every other republic in Europe?

Let's see:

German Republic- Born out of the chaos of World War II, which was caused by the abolition of monarchies

French Republic- Claims to be the successor of the genocidal First Republic

Portuguese Republic- Has suffered from extreme political instability since 1910

Italian Republic- Artificial country trying to patch up divisions

So yeah, European republics don't have the best track records in the world--and you say it would make Britain no different from Europe- what's so great about being the same? Isn't being different good?

Don't really notice the Emperor quite honestly, I don't think most Japanese do either, except that we get Dec. 23rd off for his birthday, that's about it.

French Republic- Claims to be the successor of the genocidal First Republic

The mystical attachment the French have to the First Republic is the ideals espoused, not what actually happened. Compare to Americans fawning over the slave-holding Founding Fathers who rebelled because they didn't want to pay taxes. Americans revere them, but revere them for the ideals they expressed, not the reality of things.

Italian Republic- Artificial country trying to patch up divisions

What large countries aren't? Britain certainly is.

but at least Britain was not forged by a series of expansionist wars fought by a megalomaniac dynasty, whereas the creation of Italy can be blamed on the desires of the House of Savoy for regional hegemony.

And let's see, the French Republic as it was created in 1792 espoused the complete dechristianization of the country, the destruction of the old order in Europe, and the complete annihilation of all things that were "anti-Revolutionary." That is why the First Republic was birthed.

I think it would almost always turn out bad unless the monarch was pure of heart and had a really good track record with environmental issues.

Compare to Americans fawning over the slave-holding Founding Fathers who rebelled because they didn't want to pay taxes. Americans revere them, but revere them for the ideals they expressed, not the reality of things.

That's a good enough reason for me to revere them, although I do deplore their ownership of slaves.

Also, I ask you this. If centralized power was an unnatural state of governance, why has it always been the most prevalent and common form of governance then?

it hasn't.

but at least Britain was not forged by a series of expansionist wars fought by a megalomaniac dynasty, whereas the creation of Italy can be blamed on the desires of the House of Savoy for regional hegemony.

Then how was it formed? The English going about, handing out flowers and kittens?

And let's see, the French Republic as it was created in 1792 espoused the complete dechristianization of the country, the destruction of the old order in Europe, and the complete annihilation of all things that were "anti-Revolutionary." That is why the First Republic was birthed.

Again, you're giving people far too much credit in learning their history, or at least in intellectual honesty. Republicanism does not mean the same thing today that it did in the 1790s, or even the 1890s. People change their interpretations of the past to fit their current needs. You don't honestly think the French today approve of what Robespierre did, do you?

That's a good enough reason for me to revere them, although I do deplore their ownership of slaves.

Yes, but most people aren't hardcore libertarians who view taxes as theft.

Besides her majesty, the rest of them are a bunch of parasites that out to be cut out of the Royal Family and sent on their respective ways. I think we definately need to reduce their number. They could keep whatever titles they've had invented for them (Earl of Wessex, for Christ's sake. That was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom, not a medieval Earldom), but they don't get any free money from the tax payer and they damned well can't call themselves "his/her royal highness" any more.

Technically incorrect, though I appreciate what you're trying to say. For the record, Harold II Godwinson - loser of the Battle of Hastings - was very much a medieval Earl of Wessex, succeeding his father Godwin in 1053. So the title wasn't entirely without precedent.

However, prior to the current Queen's son being granted the title, there hadn't been an Earl of Wessex since 1066. So while not entirely without precedent, it was hardly a title with a longstanding tradition.

As to Imperio Mexicano's statement that the US Founding Father's reluctance to pay taxes is

That's a good enough reason for me to revere them, although I do deplore their ownership of slaves.

Again, that's technically inaccurate on a couple of counts, and this time the inaccuracies this time are more undermining to the central argument. First of all, by no means were they against paying any taxes, as implied. The principle they objected to was the imposition of taxes by an imperial parliament without the consent of representatives of the taxed.

And by no means did they all own slaves, and even some that did (such as George Washington) realised the paradox of owning slaves while campaigning for individual freedom; Washington freed his slaves in his will (though only on the death of his wife). The most conspicuous hypocrite was Jefferson, who never quite managed to bridge the gap between writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" with his ownership of slaves, only five of whom he ever freed.


Finally, as to monarchies... I'm a fan of constitutional monarchies where the head of state holds a purely symbolic role, and the elected head of government holds the actual power.

Then how was it formed? The English going about, handing out flowers and kittens?

That would be so awesome if it were true. :D

Yes, but most people aren't hardcore libertarians who view taxes as theft.

I noticed. :p

I'd prefer either option 1 or 2, depending on how "limited" the powers of the Monarch would be. My personal preference would be for there to exist a culture of consultation rather than excessive curbs on the power of the Monarch to act. Handing too much power to the elected politicians only really leads to many, but not all, of the problems that the republican model faces.


A monarch does have the advantage that they have to have a strategy for their reign, rather than just latching on to whichever issue is currently in vogue, trying to ensure re-election, etc.


And this is why. This, for me, is the most important thing. Stability and consistency in planning a long term strategy for the nation, rather than ruling by a series of short term "quick fixes" that only work long enough to get the ruler through the next election. This is more likely to lead to a viable nation. Monarchy can also be very socially constructive, pulling a society and nation together rather than driving it apart into political factions.

As for those who have questioned the cost of having a Monarch, in financial terms. As Yootopia pointed out, this is simply not true financially, in the case of the United Kingdom. The Crown Estates provide much more revenue than the Royal Family collect from the government for their duties.

Sadly, I believe the United Kingdom is the only nation to debate the role of our head of state in such ways. I'd be interesting to see if the same were done for presidents? Does Bush pay more into the nation than he costs it? Does Sarkozy? Do we seriously debate the worth of having either, purely on these grounds? If government is a matter of having the cheapest possible administration, then I guess having a Monarch still is a good system, since we can claim a profit. How wonderful and convincing a way to decide such matters.

You don't honestly think the French today approve of what Robespierre did, do you?

Probably.

Every country has a list of douchebags it admires.

Again, that's technically inaccurate on a couple of counts, and this time the inaccuracies this time are more undermining to the central argument. First of all, by no means were they against paying any taxes, as implied. The principle they objected to was the imposition of taxes by an imperial parliament without the consent of representatives of the taxed.

Rather, they disagreed with the method of representation. They didn't agree that members of Parliament who'd never even been to North America could represent them, whereas the British obviously thought they could.

Also, those taxes (which were lower than in the UK proper) were used to fund troops they had demanded to prevent a repeat of the French and Indian (Seven Years) War.

And by no means did they all own slaves, and even some that did (such as George Washington) realised the paradox of owning slaves while campaigning for individual freedom; Washington freed his slaves in his will (though only on the death of his wife). The most conspicuous hypocrite was Jefferson, who never quite managed to bridge the gap between writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" with his ownership of slaves, only five of whom he ever freed.

I wasn't saying that they all owned slaves. In fact, Jefferson was largely who I was referring to, although many of the other Founding Fathers (depending on one's definition thereof) were similarly hypocritical. My point is that Americans today revere their words (All men were created equal) rather than their actions.

All in all though, I must say you got rather more out of what I was saying than was actually there.

Probably.

Every country has a list of douchebags it admires.

Well, I lived in France for about 6 months and no one I discussed politics or history with (and the French love discussing politics) had anything positive to say about him. My history professors uniformly referred to him as a murderer.

And this is why. This, for me, is the most important thing. Stability and consistency in planning a long term strategy for the nation, rather than ruling by a series of short term "quick fixes" that only work long enough to get the ruler through the next election. This is more likely to lead to a viable nation. Monarchy can also be very socially constructive, pulling a society and nation together rather than driving it apart into political factions.
Which is why Nepal did so well under absolute monarchy, and San Marino lasted so long under a republic, I presume? And that the post-Napoleonic French monarchy was both created and overthrown while the US Republic survived? I find it hard to believe that there is one size fits all rule that means a monarchy will always be more stable than a republic, or vice versa. There is no guarantee that a monarch can rule any better than a elected politician. We've tried many political systems over the years, but I've yet to hear any convincing argument that we've ever had anything better than what we've got now.

Not that any developed monarchy outside of Lichtenstein and Monaco would want to be involved in politics, and have their office tainted by it when they inevitable develop political opponents.

Monarchy can also be very socially constructive, pulling a society and nation together rather than driving it apart into political factions.
English Civil War, anybody?

As Burmecia says, you can't say there's some universal law whereby monarchies are more or or less stable than republics.

English Civil War, anybody?

As Burmecia says, you can't say there's some universal law whereby monarchies are more or or less stable than republics.

I emphasise the can. I never implied a universal absolute. Also I think if we take the history of nations over the last 250 years, since the widespread deployment of the republican model as a state system, the track record in national cohesion probabaly somewhat behind that of monarchies in the same period, constitutional or absolute. Republican/Facist Spain, anybody?

I emphasise the can. I never implied a universal absolute.
Perhaps I exaggerated your statement, but from my reading you heavily implied a monarchy would be more stable.

Also I think if we take the history of nations over the last 250 years, since the widespread deployment of the republican model as a state system, the track record in national cohesion probabaly somewhat behind that of monarchies in the same period, constitutional or absolute.
I just don't see that.

Absolute power over a nation, and the fear-based obedience that sometimes follows doesn't equate to 'cohesion'.

Well, I lived in France for about 6 months and no one I discussed politics or history with (and the French love discussing politics) had anything positive to say about him. My history professors uniformly referred to him as a murderer.

I stand corrected.

Also I think if we take the history of nations over the last 250 years, since the widespread deployment of the republican model as a state system, the track record in national cohesion probabaly somewhat behind that of monarchies in the same period, constitutional or absolute. Republican/Facist Spain, anybody?
The Spanish republicans were not fascists. They were embroiled in a civil war against fascists, who were actually monarchists. Hence why Franco claimed to rule as a kind of regent.

Thank you for making my previous point for me.

The thing with autocracies is that they produce either brilliant rulers, or terrible ones. Compare to democracy, which is a constant exercise in mediocrity.

I didn't say anything about "liv in the society which one wants to live in." I referred to having the power to choose for ourselves.
I'd have thought that having the power to choose somewhat assumes that it'll be something plausible, no?

Pipe-dreams as methods of society lead to severe fuck-ups.
First, I said "we", not "I"--[I]social self-rule necessarily involves collective self-determination (democracy).
Not like you have to have democracy to have self-determination.
Second, losing a vote in no way denies the freedom of the loser... as long as the loser is permitted full participation.
They lose the freedom to have their ideas given legitimacy. That's something of a large freedom to lose, no?
That's not my argument against preserving constitutional monarchy. That's my argument against "libertarian" monarchists, who tend not to merely advocate ceremonial monarchs.
Ah, rightio.

Yes, "libertarian" anythings are generally pretty silly creatures.
There's a difference between a ruler and a leader... and between someone tasked with making day-to-day decisions and someone granted full-out political power.
Quite. A ruler can get things done very quickly, whereas a leader often has to wade through beaurocracy. But oh well. Not entirely relevant to the whole monarchy thing.
But to return to the point, for the moment I am defending democracy, not advocating anarchy, so such distinctions are not even important. We can have elected leaders on the representative model without being monarchist.
And we can also have them whilst being a monarchist.

I'm sure as hell not for absolutist rule by the monarchy, but they're nice to have around essentially as a national ornament that makes us a few quid. I think that both of us know that extremism of any kind is completely foolhardy. You just take a different side of the fence to me on this one, methinks.

English Civil War, anybody?
Yeah, quite.

We lost a king, who shut down parliament, and gained a dictator, who shut down parliament, banned sports, fun on Christmas and generally imposed his bigotted will on the land until he died and his fuckwit son took over, at which point we brought the monarchy back, For Fun And For Profit.

Whoop-dee-doo.

We lost a king, who shut down parliament, and gained a dictator, who shut down parliament, banned sports, fun on Christmas and generally imposed his bigotted will on the land until he died and his fuckwit son took over, at which point we brought the monarchy back, For Fun And For Profit.
Which only goes to show that any style of government can be unstable, corrupt, or otherwise.

Let's see:

German Republic- Born out of the chaos of World War II, which was caused by the abolition of monarchies
Erm... the Great War, not World War II was the cause of the German Republic. At least get your facts right, eh?
French Republic- Claims to be the successor of the genocidal First Republic
Not sure it was that genocidal, but yeah, the whole revolution thing was pretty bad. That being said, so was their leadership, and I can't blame them.
Portuguese Republic- Has suffered from extreme political instability since 1910
Quite.
Italian Republic- Artificial country trying to patch up divisions
And has also become one of the weaker European countries again. Bit of a shame, really.
So yeah, European republics don't have the best track records in the world--and you say it would make Britain no different from Europe- what's so great about being the same? Isn't being different good?
Most of the European Republics are fine, really. I just like the monarchy because they stop governments going too far.

Which only goes to show that any style of government can be unstable, corrupt or otherwise.
Err Cromwell's government was a military dictatorship which basically turned rural England into Somalia, with the army taking 'taxes' from the local people in return for not burning their villages down etc.

It was quite corrupt indeed.

It was quite corrupt indeed.
I quite agree!

Looks like I missed a comma. The sentence should read: "any style of government can be unstable, corrupt, or otherwise".

What a difference a squiggly line makes!

I quite agree!

Looks like I missed a comma. The sentence should read: "any style of government can be unstable, corrupt, or otherwise".

What a difference a squiggly line makes!
Ooooh ok.

Possibly should have worked that one out, but I've just started off ma drinking before going out tonight (wooo for my 18th birthday)

I prefer monarchs to republics, and I'm sick of this nonsense about monarchs being inherently autocratic, or old fashioned, or corrupt by its nature. It's just a word to describe the head of state, where I would much rather a powerless monarch own the state rather than a president.

Possibly should have worked that one out, but I've just started off ma drinking before going out tonight (wooo for my 18th birthday)
Happily Birthday, mate!

Don't destroy too much of York town centre, y'hear? :P

I prefer monarchs to republics, and I'm sick of this nonsense about monarchs being inherently autocratic, or old fashioned, or corrupt by its nature. It's just a word to describe the head of state, where I would much rather a powerless monarch own the state rather than a president.
Quite.
Happily Birthday, mate!
Cheers :D
Don't destroy too much of York town centre, y'hear? :P
*puts down chisel kit* :(

Happily Birthday, mate!

Don't destroy too much of York town centre, y'hear? :P

You go to york yootopia? Doesn't TBC go there too? That must be a little weird, have you met each other yet?

I prefer monarchs to republics, and I'm sick of this nonsense about monarchs being inherently autocratic, or old fashioned, or corrupt by its nature. It's just a word to describe the head of state, where I would much rather a powerless monarch own the state rather than a president.
Rather than monarchy being inherently autocratic, etc., my big beef with monarchy in general is the idea that an individual is granted the position of monarch solely because he or she was born to the previous monarch/monarch's wife.

It's this illogical nature (and if they hold onto it, the Divine Right of Kings) that can easily lead to autocratic government, corruption, etc.

Even if the House of Windsor has no real power, why on Earth should they get their mitts on Balmoral, etc.? Just because they're born to a member of the House of Windsor?

Rather than monarchy being inherently autocratic, etc., my big beef with monarchy in general is the idea that an individual is granted the position of monarch solely because he or she was born to the previous monarch/monarch's wife.

It's this illogical nature (and if they hold onto it, the Divine Right of Kings) that can easily lead to autocratic government, corruption, etc.

Even if the House of Windsor has no real power, why on Earth should they get their mitts on Balmoral, etc.? Just because they're born to a member of the House of Windsor?

Why not? You must remember that the Windsor family own the UK, not just one individual monarch. And having an elected monarch really defeats the point for me.

Why not?
Because we live in a society that is, if not always in reality, in theory meant to be democratic and meritocratic, not ruled by nepotism. What, then, is the point of a privileged family being elevated above the rest of us?

You must remember that the Windsor family own the UK, not just one individual monarch.
That's not exactly allaying my worries; it's still very much nepotism.

And having an elected monarch really defeats the point for me.
What, pray tell, is this 'point'?

Because we live in a society that is, if not always in reality, in theory meant to be democratic and meritocratic, not ruled by nepotism. What, then, is the point of a privileged family being elevated above the rest of us?


Well, no country is really purely democratic, so meh.


That's not exactly allaying my worries; it's still very much nepotism.


Still meh.


What, pray tell, is this 'point'?

That the head of state will not have any political agenda, and will only serve to protect the country in whichever way it can, for one thing. Having an elected monarch runs the risk of electing someone with an agenda that may lead him to exploit his position, or disregard the common law in favour of the elected government.

Also, I just think the monarch is just kinda nice, it gives the country a bit of character, without causing any harm, so again - why not?

That the head of state will not have any political agenda, and will only serve to protect the country in whichever way it can, for one thing. Having an elected monarch runs the risk of electing someone with an agenda that may lead him to exploit his position, or disregard the common law in favour of the elected government.


Having anyone in a position of power runs the risk of them exploiting their position. At least with elections that person has a limit on the amount of time they can do so.

Having anyone in a position of power runs the risk of them exploiting their position. At least with elections that person has a limit on the amount of time they can do so.

The point is, the monarch is there to limit the power of the elected prime minister. Otherwise you would have a president, where there are no restrictions.

Being brought up and heavily educated with these values as a Windsor would ensure enough for me that they would not exploit their own powers anyway, unlike if the monarch was elected.

It's only my 18th, my UCAS hasn't even been sent off yet :p


Crap I forgot to turn my brain on again!


I've been living here, ooh, 9 years now. And I've yet to meet TBC.

Well, see that you do, it'll be hilarious (as long as there are pics).

You go to york yootopia? Doesn't TBC go there too? That must be a little weird, have you met each other yet?
It's only my 18th, my UCAS hasn't even been sent off yet :p

I've been living here, ooh, 9 years now. And I've yet to meet TBC.

Crap I forgot to turn my brain on again!
No worries, happens to us all.
Well, see that you do, it'll be hilarious (as long as there are pics).
Rightio!

Just like you can be nearly democratic, but not actually democratic.

That's stupid. Death isn't a scale. To say that someone is "near dead" generally isn't to say that someone has some of the qualities of death, but not others; it's to say that someone will soon be dead, or can easily be brought to die from their present state.

When we speak of democracy, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense to say that a country is partially democratic, and insofar as it is so, to speak of it in democratic terms.

Which doesn't happen. Except for maybe hermits, loners and other people who have disconnected themselves from society.

Collective self-rule and individual self-rule are different things. In a society like ours, the latter is impossible. The first is not--at least not clearly so.

Tell me, what does the term egalitarian mean to you?

Equal distribution of wealth and power.

And how would it apply to primitive hunter gatherer tribes?

Lack of centralized power and egalitarian distribution of wealth.

By that standard, the Vatican is powerless.

Religion in general exercises power because generally speaking people are not convinced, but rather indoctrinated.

Every single charismatic person who managed to persuade the masses to do their bidding is powerless.

How did they "persuade" them?

If they deluded them, or manipulated them, then they exercised power. If they convinced them rationally, they did not.

Someone who willingly subordinates to another is hardly any different than someone who is forced to subordinate to that same person insofar as power is concerned.

Nonsense. One is exercising power. The other is convincing someone else to exercise power.

Maybe guidance was the wrong word to pick.

Try "manipulation." It might work better.

But I see no reason to suspect that the potential for manipulation is so great that any strides at all towards self-rule are worthless.

Find me a government where every citizen, wherein citizen didn't mean a specific subset of the population, actively participates in the governance of the nation as a whole.

First, this is obviously too high a standard to indicate that attempts at democracy are worthless, for we can have a society that is quite democratic without every citizen "actively participat in the governance of the nation as a whole."

Second, while I would agree that no presently existing nation meets this criterion, the more relevant question for our dispute is whether or not such a thing is [I]possible.

Is it not possible for logistical reasons? But we can decentralize political power radically if we so choose... we are not condemned to the present national political structures.

Is it not possible because people don't care enough? But I think this is the wrong way to approach the problem. The key to political freedom is the capability to participate meaningfully, and as long as that is open the abstention rate is immaterial.

Where the population is strongly tied into the government as a whole, not bound to special interest groups or to charismatic individuals who tell them what to do.

What's undemocratic about "special interest groups"? Citizens petitioning the government for certain policies seems very democratic to me. If you mean the politicians are bound to the "special interests" of the powerful, this is a very different argument, but it suggests that genuine democracy is still possible: neither the existing centralized political structure (allowing politicians to be distant from and less accountable to the people) nor the existing distribution of wealth and power (allowing the existence of unelected powerful people in the first place) are necessary social facts.

As for "charismatic individuals", maybe once every few decades or so, but for the most part it seems to me that most people in modern democracies aren't bound to "charismatic individuals" at all.

Then you are clearly misunderstanding what it means to be ruthless. Ruthless doesn't mean you solve all your problems by killing everyone who opposes you. That's one way of going about it, but hardly the only way. Ruthless means being able to do what it takes to get what you want, removing whatever obstacles are in your way without compunction or pity.

Stop the semantic dispute. You're still not addressing the point.

Even if all that's changeable is the means, so what? As a society, there are ways to ensure that the most efficient way to maintain power is to be democratic about it. That's the whole point of representative democracy.

Short of rewriting core human behavior, I do not see how that is possible.

Great, but an argument would be nice.

Let me put it this way. Observe a wolf pack. How does leadership of the pack come about? By force. How does that leadership change? Again, by force, the loser cast out from the pack.

Yes, the process used to determine leadership is one of force. It does not follow that power is maintained by force.

If we determined our ruler by gladiatorial combat, but willingly obeyed him afterward, that is not rule by force.

Just because humanity has more methods of changing leadership that do not require force does not mean it is any less natural for them to concentrate power on the top.

Who said anything about "changing leadership"? I'm talking about enforcing obedience.

However leadership is determined, if centralized rule were natural we would not need massive repressive institutions and propaganda machines to maintain it. After all, we certainly had no such thing in our natural state.

It is natural for those without to desire power.

Then subordination clearly can't be a natural state, can it? If it were, why would the subordinated desire power? If their nature is always directed towards escaping subordination, that is the first sign that their subordination is not natural at all: after all, it is against their natures.

Also, I ask you this. If centralized power was an unnatural state of governance, why has it always been the most prevalent and common form of governance then?

Because highly unnatural social and economic circumstances are often suited to centralized power, and centralized power has a weight of its own: it is self-perpetuating.

Of course, despite these facts we have actually made immense progress in restraining and reducing centralized power, so clearly it's not an inevitable fact of human existence.

The point is, the monarch is there to limit the power of the elected prime minister. Otherwise you would have a president, where there are no restrictions.

Being brought up and heavily educated with these values as a Windsor would ensure enough for me that they would not exploit their own powers anyway, unlike if the monarch was elected.
I doubt the monarch is really interested in limiting the power of the Prime Minister. It's not like it's ever happened in hundreds of years and it's not like they could if they wanted to. They're probably more interested in protecting their own privilege.

That the head of state will not have any political agenda, and will only serve to protect the country in whichever way it can, for one thing. Having an elected monarch runs the risk of electing someone with an agenda that may lead him to exploit his position, or disregard the common law in favour of the elected government.

Also, I just think the monarch is just kinda nice, it gives the country a bit of character, without causing any harm, so again - why not?
My reasons for why not (nepotism, undemocratic, unnecessary, etc.) I suspect will not be accepted for you, for the same reason you think nepotism is 'meh'. The very existence of the Royal family disturbs some of my deeply held beliefs, but obviously not yours.

If you're not bothered by an unelected, powerless group of individuals being given a role in government, taxpayers money, vast tracts of land up and down the country, etc., then I'm not going to convince you these are bad things.

Moreover, I think the Queen and her household are far from unpolitical, and do not 'serve the country' for the sake of serving the country. She has no real power, and has failed to prevent a series of PM's from doing pretty much whatever they liked.

If you're not bothered by an unelected, powerless group of individuals being given a role in government

Not really, they are kind of outside the government in a way, but whatever.


taxpayers money

50p a year... oh no!


, vast tracts of land up and down the country

Not that much, and they do a good job of preserving the land they own anyway.


Moreover, I think the Queen and her household are far from unpolitical, and do not 'serve the country' for the sake of serving the country. She has no real power, and has failed to prevent a series of PM's from doing pretty much whatever they liked.

The house of lords has blocked a number of bills from coming in, and they did at least try to block the Iraq war. The house of lords of course, is part of the institution of the monarch.

Not really, they are kind of outside the government in a way, but whatever.

50p a year... oh no!
You're still not getting it; I'm against the principle of monarchy itself.

No matter how little power, or how little money they get from taxpayers (around £35,000 p/w, IIRC) the very fact that an unelected group of individuals receives this money or power goes against the principles I hold dear.

Not that much, and they do a good job of preserving the land they own anyway.
On the contrary, the monarchy is Britain's largest landowner. They own a huge amount of land.

The house of lords has blocked a number of bills from coming in, and they did at least try to block the Iraq war. The house of lords of course, is part of the institution of the monarch.
The House of Lords is rarely effective and anyway, we're talking about the royal family and what they do. The royals do shit all for the country's well-being.

The house of lords has blocked a number of bills from coming in, and they did at least try to block the Iraq war. The house of lords of course, is part of the institution of the monarch.
I thought the House of Lords was the upper house of the UK Parliament, rather than part of the monarchy. I know the Queen appoints peers (Though in practice it's obviously the government) but it's still part of Parliament. As for blocking bills, it's not like they can really do it, they can be overruled through the Parliament Act.

Perhaps I exaggerated your statement, but from my reading you heavily implied a monarchy would be more stable.


Well there are indeed examples of this, and there are also examples against it, but on the whole I would say that a monarchy would be more stable, as a look at republican states in Europe and Latin America over the last two centuries would suggest. However it’s not an absolute.



I just don't see that.


A lot of the 20th century mess across Europe started in Republics. A lot of the internal strife in the Middle East comes from republics. Not exclusively, of course, and I don't say that republics are completely bad and part of some kind of evil conspiracy being hatched against human kind (if there was, Starbucks and Microsoft would be involved, obviously). Rather that the republican model is over-hyped and over-rated, and generally fails to deliver what nations tend to need most... consistency, continuity, order and stability. It's for that reason I'm not a big fan of them.


Absolute power over a nation, and the fear-based obedience that sometimes follows doesn't equate to 'cohesion'.

Power doesn't have to be wielded through fear, though as any president seeking re-election in the midst of a war (either real or imagined) will tell you, it's certainly one way, and a democrat can wield it every bit as efficiently as a king, or a general, or an ebil terrorist.

The house of lords has blocked a number of bills from coming in, and they did at least try to block the Iraq war. The house of lords of course, is part of the institution of the monarch.


Indeed! I agree the Lords is an important, vital, buffer in our system of government.

However I think in the current system I am unnerved by the way Commons has the ability to fill the Lords to an frightening degree with it's own retirees and what this means for the future of the institution.

A lot of the internal strife in the Middle East comes from republics.
The vast majority of the internal strife of the republics in the Near East doesn't come from the fact that they are republics, but from the fact that most of them are entirely artificial constructs, drawn out on a map in a dusty hotel room in Baghdad from the remains of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France. They entirely ignore the tribal boundaries that have divided the area for millenia, and thus only a strong ruler can keep a nation together. Saddam wasn't a monarch (at least, in the royal sense of the term), but he was a strong enough ruler to keep Iraq together.

it hasn't.

Prove it.

Prove it.

read an anthropology text. centralized power is a new invention in human history and hasn't even been the dominant form in the world (in terms of numbers of societies, rather than numbers of individuals) until very recently. egalitarianism and decentralization have by far been the dominant themes of humanity for our entire history on earth.

Not sure it was that genocidal, but yeah, the whole revolution thing was pretty bad. That being said, so was their leadership, and I can't blame them.

What happened in the Vendee was nothing less than genocide.

(wooo for my 18th birthday)

Happy b-day

That's stupid. Death isn't a scale. To say that someone is "near dead" generally isn't to say that someone has some of the qualities of death, but not others; it's to say that someone will soon be dead, or can easily be brought to die from their present state.

When we speak of democracy, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense to say that a country is partially democratic, and insofar as it is so, to speak of it in democratic terms.

That's a matter of interpretation then. I simply do not see it the way you describe it.


Collective self-rule and individual self-rule are different things. In a society like ours, the latter is impossible. The first is not--at least not clearly so.


Collective self rule you say. Yet there is still a single focus point of leadership isn't there? With said leadership wielding power far above and beyond the collective on an individual rule.


Equal distribution of wealth and power.

Lack of centralized power and egalitarian distribution of wealth.


Given that most primitive tribes had a leader of some sort, one cannot say it is really egalitarian.


Religion in general exercises power because generally speaking people are not convinced, but rather indoctrinated.


And what difference is it, whether one is convinced or indoctrinated? Whatever power the person convinced or indoctrinated has is still subordinated to the primary controller.


How did they "persuade" them?

If they deluded them, or manipulated them, then they exercised power. If they convinced them rationally, they did not.

Does it matter? The end result is still the same. And how would you differentiate between deluding and rational convincing hmm? What is the standard of rationality that separates delusion and rational argument? It seems easy at first glance, but when you look at how such individuals convinced the masses, it becomes a great deal muddier.


Nonsense. One is exercising power. The other is convincing someone else to exercise power.

This is nonsense. Both are exercising power. Just because the acts and resources of another are willingly given rather than coerced does not mean there is no exercise of power on the other side.

Take religion for example. By itself it's completely powerless. At best you'd have a bunch of broke priests. But because people willingly give to them and believe what they say religious heads can rise to positions of immense power and wealth.

You say it's indoctrination. That it's somehow different from convincing people. I don't. In the end, it's about making people believe in you and doing what you say. Fundamental difference? None.


Try "manipulation." It might work better.

But I see no reason to suspect that the potential for manipulation is so great that any strides at all towards self-rule are worthless.

Considering that the majority of people prefer to be led rather than rule as a collective, that reason is plenty.

Any such stride towards self-rule would have to take a radically different approach and rewrite human society at a fundamental level the likes that have never been seen before.


First, this is obviously too high a standard to indicate that attempts at democracy are worthless, for we can have a society that is quite democratic without every citizen "actively participat in the governance of the nation as a whole."

And because every citizen does not actively participate, or even a significant majority of them, power flows to a handful of individuals who in turn form a closed circle of upper strata society where the power stays forever short of revolution.


Second, while I would agree that no presently existing nation meets this criterion, the more relevant question for our dispute is whether or not such a thing is [I]possible.

It isn't. Not on any scale. Human behavior dictates that such an attempt would collapse on its face.


Is it not possible for logistical reasons? But we can decentralize political power radically if we so choose... we are not condemned to the present national political structures.

We, as a race, condemn ourselves. We could choose to. But we do not. Because we do not want to. Because we are too small minded and comfortable in our niches to ever desire something like that.

Humans are greedy. But humans also want stability.


Is it not possible because people don't care enough? But I think this is the wrong way to approach the problem. The key to political freedom is the capability to participate meaningfully, and as long as that is open the abstention rate is immaterial.

Political freedom is meaningless if so few people care about it, because it leads the way for the few to take power and make it political unfreedom.


What's undemocratic about "special interest groups"? Citizens petitioning the government for certain policies seems very democratic to me. If you mean the politicians are bound to the "special interests" of the powerful, this is a very different argument, but it suggests that genuine democracy is still possible: neither the existing centralized political structure (allowing politicians to be distant from and less accountable to the people) nor the existing distribution of wealth and power (allowing the existence of unelected powerful people in the first place) are necessary social facts.

The existence of politicians itself, people who's sole job is to rule on differing scales, is contradictory to the idea of collective self rule. Yet if everyone was involved in collective self rule, nothing practical would be done. There is a good reason why Athenian democracy was so dependent on slave labor.

Lastly, I point out the sheer impracticality of it all. I believe you have heard of the term "too many cooks spoil the broth". If too many people become involved in the ruling process, such as collective self rule, nothing would come of it. It would be forever deadlocked.


As for "charismatic individuals", maybe once every few decades or so, but for the most part it seems to me that most people in modern democracies aren't bound to "charismatic individuals" at all.


Considering how popular certain individuals are who promise fire and brimstone or shout meaningless rhetoric, perhaps the standards of what determines charisma have dropped.


Even if all that's changeable is the means, so what? As a society, there are ways to ensure that the most efficient way to maintain power is to be democratic about it. That's the whole point of representative democracy.


Incorrect. The most efficient way to maintain power is to convince the masses that they are incapable of leading themselves, and that the current power structure is the best way of leading. Challenges to said power structure are either forcefully quashed or discredited.


Great, but an argument would be nice.


It's simple. Human behavior. Most humans have an inherent desire for stability, a life where all factors are known. This means that unless they are specifically raised to rule, few are actually comfortable with the actual process of ruling, or even taking part in it. Yes, they might have ideas and desires of what the government should do, but going from opinion to action itself are worlds apart. They still end up trusting the government. Or perhaps they are simply not comfortable with bucking the line. The sheep mentality you see. From classrooms to political rallies, it is always the same.


Yes, the process used to determine leadership is one of force. It does not follow that power is maintained by force.

This does not follow logical progression. If leadership is determined by force, including whether the old leadership stays or goes, then leadership, e.g. power, is maintained by force.


If we determined our ruler by gladiatorial combat, but willingly obeyed him afterward, that is not rule by force.

You mean everyone not willing to step up and challenge said ruler.


Who said anything about "changing leadership"? I'm talking about enforcing obedience.

However leadership is determined, if centralized rule were natural we would not need massive repressive institutions and propaganda machines to maintain it. After all, we certainly had no such thing in our natural state.


In our natural state, about 80% of humanity would be dead. As societies grow larger and more complex, so does control mechanisms. In small tribes, trial by strength is sufficient. In larger societies, it's not practical.


Then subordination clearly can't be a natural state, can it? If it were, why would the subordinated desire power? If their nature is always directed towards escaping subordination, that is the first sign that their subordination is not natural at all: after all, it is against their natures.


Paradoxical, but natural. Subordinate and challenging. These are two natural states in any social animal. They can be one or the other.


Because highly unnatural social and economic circumstances are often suited to centralized power, and centralized power has a weight of its own: it is self-perpetuating.

Of course, despite these facts we have actually made immense progress in restraining and reducing centralized power, so clearly it's not an inevitable fact of human existence.

Immense progress in restraining and reducing it, or perhaps at better camouflaging it? Is the illusion of choice really a choice?

That's a matter of interpretation then.

No, it isn't. Because you don't want to make any distinction, in terms of democracy, between existing governments.

That's a whole lot more than a matter of interpretation.

Yet there is still a single focus point of leadership isn't there?

Leadership is not rule. And, no, there isn't necessarily any such "focus point."

Given that most primitive tribes had a leader of some sort

Such "leaders", to the extent they existed at all, did not function like rulers.

And what difference is it, whether one is convinced or indoctrinated?

Um... have you been paying any attention at all?

One involves subordination. The other does not.

Does it matter?

If you believe in freedom, and democracy is just an extension of freedom, then it matters because it is the difference between a free choice and an unfree choice.

If the people choose freely, it matters not whose advice they have received: it is still democratic.

And how would you differentiate between deluding and rational convincing hmm? What is the standard of rationality that separates delusion and rational argument?

Um... the "standard" is rationality itself.

It seems easy at first glance, but when you look at how such individuals convinced the masses, it becomes a great deal muddier.

I don't see how.

Just because the acts and resources of another are willingly given rather than coerced does not mean there is no exercise of power on the other side.

That's exactly what it means.

Again, remember we are speaking of power in the context of democracy. If the people willingly choose to go with a policy, that is democratic, even if they have been convinced to do so.

You say it's indoctrination. That it's somehow different from convincing people. I don't.

Then you're wrong.

In the end, it's about making people believe in you and doing what you say.

But in one case, you respect other people's freedom; in the other, you do not.

For democracy, that makes the whole difference.

Considering that the majority of people prefer to be led rather than rule as a collective,

Really? Actually, it seems that most people, certainly most people in existing democracies (such as they are), quite prefer democratic political systems to undemocratic ones... and generally speaking respond well to attempts to expand democracy. Indeed, their primary complaint tends to be something to the effect of the system not actually being democratic: "The politicians are just self-serving crooks and don't care about us."

Even if you could prove that this is the case, I still have no reason to accept that this is natural or necessary... for after all we live in a society where people are taught (indeed, forced) to obey others unquestionably from a very early age, and continue doing so for most of their lives.

And because every citizen does not actively participate, or even a significant majority of them, power flows to a handful of individuals who in turn form a closed circle of upper strata society

This is hardly inevitable. It requires institutional structures of power: it requires that there be a capacity for "upper strata society" built into the system.

Furthermore, can you really provide an example of a truly democratic system that collapsed (without the use of force) into a system of centralized power?

We, as a race, condemn ourselves. We could choose to. But we do not. Because we do not want to.

We want, instead, other people ruling over us? Really?

And that's why people always love their bosses at work, and are known for their fondness for the politicians ruling the country....

Political freedom is meaningless if so few people care about it, because it leads the way for the few to take power and make it political unfreedom.

It can only be made political unfreedom if there is the institutional possibility of restricting access and creating a power structure. That is not necessary.

The existence of politicians itself, people who's sole job is to rule on differing scales, is contradictory to the idea of collective self rule.

Perhaps not perfectly in line with it--perhaps even somewhat antagonistic. But not "contradictory."

Yet if everyone was involved in collective self rule, nothing practical would be done.

Obviously everyone is not always involved with everything. Again, you refuse to recognize that this is a matter of degree. I know that we will never achieve perfect democracy. It does not follow that we can never have a very democratic society.

If too many people become involved in the ruling process, such as collective self rule, nothing would come of it. It would be forever deadlocked.

Why is that?

Considering how popular certain individuals are who promise fire and brimstone or shout meaningless rhetoric

Politicians or preachers? I thought we were speaking of politicians.

While (say) George Bush is an idiot, he (or at least his advisors and speechwriters) are definitely concerned with making some sense in presenting their arguments to the public.

The most efficient way to maintain power is to convince the masses that they are incapable of leading themselves, and that the current power structure is the best way of leading.

It doesn't seem to me that the rulers of the major industrialized democracies do this at all. To the contrary, their positions depend on convincing the masses of something profoundly different: that the people actually do rule.

It's simple. Human behavior. Most humans have an inherent desire for stability, a life where all factors are known.

All the more reason for them to desire democracy! Who can know what the ruler in his palace will do next? Better to trust myself, and people like me, to run things... then I can be sure my life and welfare won't be offered up on some ruler's whim.

This means that unless they are specifically raised to rule, few are actually comfortable with the actual process of ruling, or even taking part in it.

You're contradicting yourself.

If you desire stability, the first thing you want is control.

This does not follow logical progression. If leadership is determined by force, including whether the old leadership stays or goes, then leadership, e.g. power, is maintained by force.

We have a leader. We have a process to select the leader, which we both agree is force. But it does not follow that the leader maintains authority through force--it does not follow that the others obey the leader because they are forced to.

You are equivocating, and I think you know it.

You mean everyone not willing to step up and challenge said ruler.

I can "step up and challenge said ruler" a dozen ways without actually entering the gladiatorial arena.

Why does he maintain his rule anyway? Because the process is respected independently of force, or because he has massive repressive institutions that force people to obey.

In small tribes, trial by strength is sufficient.

No, it isn't. Look, even if the "primitive" tribes that had/have positions of leadership determined them by single combat (they didn't, at least for the most part), it still wouldn't prove your point. What does the ability to defeat any challenger prove? Merely that I can defeat any challenger. Does it mean that I can enforce my commands? Does it mean that I can punish someone for disobedience? Not at all... and in humanity's natural state, without armies of professional killers, enforcement is mostly a waste of time. Am I going to spend all my time watching everyone? Am I going to run after the one who leaves? (Who will maintain my rule while I'm gone?) Am I going to fight every dissident, knowing that two or three of them could gang up on me and beat me?

This is a very old observation... it's no mystery. An individual can never maintain much political power without institutions to back it up.

Paradoxical, but natural. Subordinate and challenging. These are two natural states in any social animal. They can be one or the other.

Hierarchical social creatures are generally willing to concede and obey when they have lost... again, authority is not maintained through force. Humans must be either very heavily indoctrinated, very heavily coerced, or both to obey continually.

Immense progress in restraining and reducing it, or perhaps at better camouflaging it?

So you don't think popular pressure has more of an effect in, say, the US or the UK than in North Korea? Really?

No, it isn't. Because you don't want to make any distinction, in terms of democracy, between existing governments.

That's a whole lot more than a matter of interpretation.

I can make the distinction in whether a government is more democratic than another. But that in itself does not make it a democratic government.


Leadership is not rule. And, no, there isn't necessarily any such "focus point."


Leadership is not rule? And what kind of distinction are you making now? Where's that magic line that separates the two?


Um... have you been paying any attention at all?

One involves subordination. The other does not.


I could ask you the same thing myself. Willing subordination. The other is coerced subordination. To the one who controls that power, either by proxy or directly, there is no distinction.


If you believe in freedom, and democracy is just an extension of freedom, then it matters because it is the difference between a free choice and an unfree choice.

If the people choose freely, it matters not whose advice they have received: it is still democratic.

Then clearly if it is free choice to surrender power to another's goals, it will not remain a democracy for very long.


Um... the "standard" is rationality itself.


And what defines rationality hmm? Many people have viewed and presented themselves themselves as rational, logical, and correct. People at the time believed them, considered it rational, logical and correct. Yet history does not, although I suspect it is mostly because they ended on the losing side.

For example, let's take hmmm, F&G. FreedomAndGlory if the shortened version doesn't ring any bells. Here on NSG, for the most part, we view him as yet another troll, or perhaps lacking a few screws in the right place. Yet put him in Stormfront, and he would not be alone in the views which he sees as logical, rational and correct.

So then. Does the term rationality actually depend on the ever shifting consensus of social standards, or is there a clear line, unaffected by the shifting passage of time, that separates the two?


I don't see how.


Have you ever studied the speeches by past leaders who were known to be particularly charismatic? They generally don't make a whole bunch of fantastical sounding propositions at one go. They start on existing sentiment, which for the most part, is considered rational, and direct them towards some particular goal or idea, which is linked to the existing sentiment. It was rational enough to them to support said leaders.


That's exactly what it means.

Again, remember we are speaking of power in the context of democracy. If the people willingly choose to go with a policy, that is democratic, even if they have been convinced to do so.


So if people willingly surrender democracy, what comes after? Can you still call it democratic? It's not like it hasn't happened before. Is the illusion of choice really a choice?


Then you're wrong.


Of course you would say that. But when pared down to the basics, it's not.


But in one case, you respect other people's freedom; in the other, you do not.

For democracy, that makes the whole difference.


See two quotes up.


Really? Actually, it seems that most people, certainly most people in existing democracies (such as they are), quite prefer democratic political systems to undemocratic ones...


How many actually take a real interest in the democratic process? How many actually study what the government is doing, and the actual effects of their actions? How many go beyond catchphrases and slogans of the day before casting their votes?

If they do not care, then democracy has failed. All that is left is a small circle of elite who use smoke and mirrors to maintain the illusion of freedom. They don't prefer democracy. They prefer the illusion of it. A push button "I made a choice, now govern me right".


and generally speaking respond well to attempts to expand democracy.


I am seeing a rather great lack of interest in the general public in the political process beyond surface skimming.


Indeed, their primary complaint tends to be something to the effect of the system not actually being democratic: "The politicians are just self-serving crooks and don't care about us."


Is it democratic when people want the government to be undemocratic or authoritarian? Because I could easily point out that half those complaints are for the government to become that.


Even if you could prove that this is the case, I still have no reason to accept that this is natural or necessary... for after all we live in a society where people are taught (indeed, forced) to obey others unquestionably from a very early age, and continue doing so for most of their lives.


And somehow, still drawing parallels to other social animals, this is somehow different from them?


This is hardly inevitable. It requires institutional structures of power: it requires that there be a capacity for "upper strata society" built into the system.

And society is such that, even with a completely flat hierarchy, it will evolve into a pyramid shaped one.

People will always want more than what they have. Including what their neighbors have. Basic human nature.

As I said before, if you want to completely change such a system, you would have to rewrite core human behavior.


Furthermore, can you really provide an example of a truly democratic system that collapsed (without the use of force) into a system of centralized power?


By your own admittance, a truly democratic system in accordance to the outlines I mentioned has never existed. Asking me to provide any example that includes a truly democratic system would lead to a circular argument.


We want, instead, other people ruling over us? Really?

And that's why people always love their bosses at work, and are known for their fondness for the politicians ruling the country....

So we may gripe about them. So what? How many of those with legitimate grievances actually do something about it? Even when there is no risk to life or limb to do so?

If we really desired to not be ruled over by other people, why do we not do anything about it? Anything meaningful that is, since griping doesn't count.


It can only be made political unfreedom if there is the institutional possibility of restricting access and creating a power structure. That is not necessary.


If it is not institutional, with so few people caring about it, what is to stop those who desire power from making it institutional?


Perhaps not perfectly in line with it--perhaps even somewhat antagonistic. But not "contradictory."


People who's sole job is to rule over others, is somehow not contradictory to collective self rule?


Obviously everyone is not always involved with everything. Again, you refuse to recognize that this is a matter of degree. I know that we will never achieve perfect democracy. It does not follow that we can never have a very democratic society.

Well then, so glad that you actually agree with my original point of contention.


Why is that?


Simple exercise. Take a room of 5 people from diverse backgrounds and limited knowledge of one another. Ask them for the best course of action for a scenario. See how many different responses you get.

Or one even simpler. The both of us and the debate to date.


Politicians or preachers? I thought we were speaking of politicians.


Aside from job professions, when they speak in public, not much difference in style. The fire and brimstone or nationalistic flag waving type politicians that is.


While (say) George Bush is an idiot, he (or at least his advisors and speechwriters) are definitely concerned with making some sense in presenting their arguments to the public.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - G.W. Bush.

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - G.W. Bush

Concerned? Really?


It doesn't seem to me that the rulers of the major industrialized democracies do this at all. To the contrary, their positions depend on convincing the masses of something profoundly different: that the people actually do rule.

"Vote for me, and I'll make you all safe."

"Vote for me, and I'll do something about the immigrants."

"Vote for me, and there'll be free beer and good times."

A distillation of sorts. Given how politicians run their platforms, I think not.


All the more reason for them to desire democracy! Who can know what the ruler in his palace will do next? Better to trust myself, and people like me, to run things... then I can be sure my life and welfare won't be offered up on some ruler's whim.

Are you trying to run for elections now? Because it certainly sounds like what some politicians base their campaigns on. The irony of it is, past elections, they forget all about their promises.


You're contradicting yourself.

How so?


If you desire stability, the first thing you want is control.

And if someone promised you that control, well, all the better that you don't have to worry about it don't you?

[QUOTE=Soheran;13328056]
We have a leader. We have a process to select the leader, which we both agree is force. But it does not follow that the leader maintains authority through force--it does not follow that the others obey the leader because they are forced to.

You are equivocating, and I think you know it.

I think you and I have two very different ideas of what maintaining authority means.


I can "step up and challenge said ruler" a dozen ways without actually entering the gladiatorial arena.


I assume you mean by disobedience.


Why does he maintain his rule anyway? Because the process is respected independently of force, or because he has massive repressive institutions that force people to obey.

Again, how is this different from what occurs in the rest of the animal world? The former that is, not the latter. The latter is redundant in most other social animals because the packs are too small to need such institutions.


No, it isn't. Look, even if the "primitive" tribes that had/have positions of leadership determined them by single combat (they didn't, at least for the most part), it still wouldn't prove your point. What does the ability to defeat any challenger prove? Merely that I can defeat any challenger. Does it mean that I can enforce my commands? Does it mean that I can punish someone for disobedience? Not at all... and in humanity's natural state, without armies of professional killers, enforcement is mostly a waste of time. Am I going to spend all my time watching everyone? Am I going to run after the one who leaves? (Who will maintain my rule while I'm gone?) Am I going to fight every dissident, knowing that two or three of them could gang up on me and beat me?

This is a very old observation... it's no mystery. An individual can never maintain much political power without institutions to back it up.


And you'll note that most leaders from the tribal level up tended to have guards or enforcers or some form of it. At least those which didn't have pre-existing social rules that accorded obedience to the position.

Trials by strength in primitive tribes to determine leadership didn't mean that the person became sole policeman, judge, jailer and all that rot in one fell swoop. It just meant that they gained control over those in the position.

Besides, I think overall, this particular point is a bit redundant against the main argument.


Hierarchical social creatures are generally willing to concede and obey when they have lost... again, authority is not maintained through force. Humans must be either very heavily indoctrinated, very heavily coerced, or both to obey continually.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a natural inclination of human behavior?


So you don't think popular pressure has more of an effect in, say, the US or the UK than in North Korea? Really?

Given that popular pressure is nearly non-existent in North Korea due to heavy indoctrination, the comparison isn't really valid.

If you mean in terms of ability to exert change, again, I ask you. Is it really a choice? Or is it the illusion of choice? If the popular pressure does not like who is in power, can it really choose one of its choice? Or is the selection limited to a small circle of elite who are only cosmetically different, thereby being no choice at all?

I can make the distinction in whether a government is more democratic than another.

Then what is the point of this whole argument, other than serving your own vanity by showing everyone how cynical you are? After all, your argument from the start has been that self-rule is a worthless aim... so why bother?

If we can move meaningfully towards it, if there are distinctions that can be made between more and less democratic governments, then your entire point is worthless.

Leadership is not rule?

No. We can have a leader without having a ruler. I think you know how. I've made this distinction, in one form or another, several times in this discussion.

I could ask you the same thing myself. Willing subordination.

I am not subordinated if I can refuse to obey at my leisure.

Willing subordination would be selling myself into slavery, which is something quite different.

To the one who controls that power, either by proxy or directly, there is no distinction.

Of course there is! When the agreement is willing, she does not "control." The moment she does something the others do not freely agree with, they can refuse to go along.

Then clearly if it is free choice to surrender power to another's goals, it will not remain a democracy for very long.

Nonsense. No power is being "surrendered." Surrender of power is a very different thing.

"Let's elect this person dictator!" is surrendering power. "Let's listen to this person's advice!" is not.

And what defines rationality hmm? Many people have viewed and presented themselves themselves as rational, logical, and correct. People at the time believed them, considered it rational, logical and correct. Yet history does not, although I suspect it is mostly because they ended on the losing side.

Obviously people have always disagreed as to what is rational. That does mean that they have disagreed as to the standard of rationality. If there were no common rationality, we could not be having this discussion... but we certainly disagree.

Of course, it does not actually matter if the people are convinced wrongly. What matters is that they are convinced on a rational level, not through emotional manipulation.

For example, let's take hmmm, F&G. FreedomAndGlory if the shortened version doesn't ring any bells. Here on NSG, for the most part, we view him as yet another troll, or perhaps lacking a few screws in the right place.

With both F&G and MTAE, I have always been the exception.

Troll? Maybe. But a good deal smarter than a whole lot of the people here. And a rare pleasure to argue against.

Yet put him in Stormfront, and he would not be alone in the views which he sees as logical, rational and correct.

So?

Does the term rationality actually depend on the ever shifting consensus of social standards

No. Not in totality, anyway. There may be elements of rationality that are culturally determined.

Have you ever studied the speeches by past leaders who were known to be particularly charismatic?

Which ones? Fascism, for its part, explicitly detested rationality, and was founded almost entirely on irrational notions of national pride and racial superiority.

There might have been reasons why those emotions were particularly present in the relevant time period, but it does not follow that they were rational.

So if people willingly surrender democracy, what comes after?

Depends entirely on what "willingly surrender" means.

Does it mean they democratically give power to a dictator? The result is non-democracy.

Does it mean they merely listen to someone, evaluate the advice, and generally follow it? It's still democracy.

It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Have democracies fallen into non-democracies? Yes (though very rarely democratically.)

Have non-democracies fallen into democracies? Also yes.

So?

How many actually take a real interest in the democratic process? How many actually study what the government is doing, and the actual effects of their actions? How many go beyond catchphrases and slogans of the day before casting their votes?

Who cares?

What matters is that they have the opportunity and the willingness to meaningfully participate when they are inclined to--when something troubles them, or they want something.

They can and they do.

If they do not care, then democracy has failed.

They care. They just don't care in the way some people would like them to.

I, personally, might find politics interesting. That does not mean that everyone should... or that it is necessary for democracy that they do.

All that is left is a small circle of elite who use smoke and mirrors to maintain the illusion of freedom.

And those elites are afraid of the people. Always have been.

Why? Because the people in even a merely formally democratic society exercise a good deal of power.

Is it democratic when people want the government to be undemocratic or authoritarian? Because I could easily point out that half those complaints are for the government to become that.

Maybe on NSG. Not in the real world.

And somehow, still drawing parallels to other social animals, this is somehow different from them?

Oh, now you want to read techniques of social indoctrination into non-human animals?

Most non-human social behavior is instinctive (as, probably, is a great deal of natural human behavior).

And society is such that, even with a completely flat hierarchy, it will evolve into a pyramid shaped one.

How? How will your devious leader enforce her commands? With what?

People will always want more than what they have. Including what their neighbors have.

People tend to want more. They tend not to want more at the expense of their neighbors--at least not their literal neighbors.

It is only through distancing ourselves from our victims that we can so callously exploit them.

Of course, the fact of human greed, even if I granted your analysis of it, proves absolutely nothing about the possibility of a democratic society.

By your own admittance, a truly democratic system in accordance to the outlines I mentioned has never existed. Asking me to provide any example that includes a truly democratic system would lead to a circular argument.

Then you admit that you have not demonstrated that a truly democratic system would in fact collapse as you have described?

So we may gripe about them. So what? How many of those with legitimate grievances actually do something about it?

Um... a whole lot? Lots of people vote, write letters, campaign, donate....

If we really desired to not be ruled over by other people, why do we not do anything about it?

We do....

If it is not institutional, with so few people caring about it, what is to stop those who desire power from making it institutional?

Hmm, seems a pretty good reason for those who don't care to start caring, doesn't it?

"Let's have a referendum on changing this country to a dictatorship!" If there were any chance at all of it passing, do you honestly think lots of people wouldn't come out to vote against it?

People who's sole job is to rule over others, is somehow not contradictory to collective self rule?

Not if they're elected through processes of collective self-rule, no.

Well then, so glad that you actually agree with my original point of contention.

If that's your only point, not only did I admit it a long time ago, but it proves absolutely nothing worthwhile about the subject under discussion... namely, which political system to adopt.

Simple exercise. Take a room of 5 people from diverse backgrounds and limited knowledge of one another. Ask them for the best course of action for a scenario. See how many different responses you get.

But so what? In no way does that imply that they cannot come to a consensus decision... indeed, as a matter of fact people in those kinds of situations actually do, all the time.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - G.W. Bush.

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - G.W. Bush

Concerned? Really?

Bushisms are funny, but they don't really prove anything... the one of those two that is remotely relevant, the first, is obviously making the point that the Bush Administration is always seeking to defend against different kinds of attacks, which surely should rationally be viewed as a good thing.

"Vote for me, and I'll make you all safe."

"Vote for me, and I'll do something about the immigrants."

"Vote for me, and there'll be free beer and good times."

All, I think, indicative of democracy... at least in the limited representative context of the centralized state. We can do better, much better, but that is another discussion.

Look, if it were really true that the population was powerless, why bother with these campaign promises... which after all tend to correlate with what the population actually cares about?

The irony of it is, past elections, they forget all about their promises.

And when they do, they are often the subject of much popular anger--something generally accompanied by defeat at the polls.

(Does that mean that every campaign promise is met? Obviously not. But those that make the effort do better than those that do not.)

And if someone promised you that control, well, all the better that you don't have to worry about it don't you?

No... you want your own control.

Someone else's control is intrinsically unpredictable. What happens if he meddles in your life in a way you don't like? What recourse do you have?

Again, how is this different from what occurs in the rest of the animal world? The former that is, not the latter. The latter is redundant in most other social animals because the packs are too small to need such institutions.

Right. The latter is intrinsically unnatural. That's the point.

And you'll note that most leaders from the tribal level up tended to have guards or enforcers or some form of it.

Not in humanity's natural state... who has the time, the energy, or the inclination to be a professional enforcer? And how do you know you can trust your enforcer?

No, on that scale anything resembling repressive institutions is impossible.

At least those which didn't have pre-existing social rules that accorded obedience to the position.

"Pre-existing social rules" that derive their power from what? General consensus? How democratic.

Besides, I think overall, this particular point is a bit redundant against the main argument.

No, it isn't. We have been arguing about human nature, and is not natural human social behavior highly relevant to that?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a natural inclination of human behavior?

If it were, we would not need the coercion and the indoctrination.

Look, I'm tired of this line of argument. If you want to remain ignorant of something both anthropology and political theory recognized a long time ago, go ahead, but I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Given that popular pressure is nearly non-existent in North Korea due to heavy indoctrination, the comparison isn't really valid.

Oh, so now political systems do differ... North Korea has more indoctrination, and thus less popular pressure.

Perhaps it is also--dare I say it--less democratic?

:rolleyes:

If you mean in terms of ability to exert change, again, I ask you. Is it really a choice? Or is it the illusion of choice? If the popular pressure does not like who is in power, can it really choose one of its choice? Or is the selection limited to a small circle of elite who are only cosmetically different, thereby being no choice at all?

Again, matters of degree.

Another day, we can discuss the specific nature of the capitalist democratic state and the ways in which popular power is restrained, but in no way does that line of critique challenge the fact that the population is much more empowered than it is in countless other places around the globe.

Well there are indeed examples of this, and there are also examples against it, but on the whole I would say that a monarchy would be more stable, as a look at republican states in Europe and Latin America over the last two centuries would suggest. However it’s not an absolute.

A lot of the 20th century mess across Europe started in Republics. A lot of the internal strife in the Middle East comes from republics. Not exclusively, of course, and I don't say that republics are completely bad and part of some kind of evil conspiracy being hatched against human kind (if there was, Starbucks and Microsoft would be involved, obviously). Rather that the republican model is over-hyped and over-rated, and generally fails to deliver what nations tend to need most... consistency, continuity, order and stability. It's for that reason I'm not a big fan of them.
A lot of trouble in the middle ease comes from monarchies, too. Saudi Arabia and Jordan spring to mind. And, unsurprisingly, many of the Latin American countries were in fact monarchies in the nineteeth century as well, before they all imploded. The simple reason we have more 'trouble' in republics today than monarchies is twofold; one, we have more republics than monarchies and two, most remaining monarchies are found in stable, democratic Europe, along with stable, democratic republics. There are, across history, examples of stable monarchies, stable republics, imploded monarchies and imploded republics. These are due more often to local conditions rather than any universal law of monarchies. A multicultural country like Switzerland is more successful as a republic arguably because its republican model avoids having a personal head of state and opts for a collegial one. On the other hand, Sweden's or the British monarchy has survived as over time they have adapted to the shift away from absolutism successfully, and reign over relatively homogenous states.

I can see no correlation between success and monarchy, or for that matter, success and republic. The only 'law' I can hypothesise is that whether a constitutional monarchy or republic is 'better' depends on the country in question.

Power doesn't have to be wielded through fear, though as any president seeking re-election in the midst of a war (either real or imagined) will tell you, it's certainly one way, and a democrat can wield it every bit as efficiently as a king, or a general, or an ebil terrorist.
One of the reasons why democracy is always limited to some degree. I dount you will find many democrats who espouce an unlimited democracy.

Indeed! I agree the Lords is an important, vital, buffer in our system of government.

However I think in the current system I am unnerved by the way Commons has the ability to fill the Lords to an frightening degree with it's own retirees and what this means for the future of the institution.
I've said this before and will say it again. If a legislature filled partially by inheritance such a good way of ensuring good government, why are the UK and Tonga the only two countries to choose such a model and, undoubtably, be so badly governed? Even other European monarchies like Sweden and Norway choose to have directly elected unicamerlal parliaments. Spain chooses its upper house almost entirely by direct election and partially by indirect election. The only reason I have seen people support an inherited lords is in order to ensure a big and little 'c' conservative bias in the legislature, although most never admit it.

If you want a better buffer against the arbitary power of the dominant faction in the Commons, I'd take proportional representation (to add in thternal set of checks and balances in the executive and legislature) and a strong written constitution and bill of rights any day, rather than relying on the mercy of oligarchy if aristocrats in the Lords.

He has no problem with killing monarchs.As Soheran pointed out, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. I'd rather abolish the monarchy than assassinate it.

Most people (including myself) are too stupid to rule over ourselves.Then how do we objectively determine the people who aren't too stupid to rule?

Let me put it this way. Observe a wolf pack. How does leadership of the pack come about? By force. How does that leadership change? Again, by force, the loser cast out from the pack.How does a group of emperor penguins choose its leader?

Not like you have to have democracy to have self-determination.Democracy is a step along the way to self-determination.

Why not? You must remember that the Windsor family own the UK, not just one individual monarch.Does that make you their tenants, or their serfs?

Equal distribution of wealth and power.

Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator, you mean.

Then how do we objectively determine the people who aren't too stupid to rule?

Pure meritocracy.

Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator, you mean.

What does this even mean? Specifically?

Pure meritocracy.

Which calls for the exact same question....

Any monarchy is only as good or bad as the monarch.

Any democracy is as good or bad as the people.

My opinion of monarchy? If the monarch has any actual power, the monarchy represents an untolerable case of arbitrary and unearned power and privilege; it is a violation of popular sovereignty and the monarch must be immediately deposed and put on trial for crimes against the people. This is the case with the absolute monarchies of the Arabian peninsula, as well as Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei etc.

If the monarch has no real power (as in the case of European monarchies), then the continued existence of the monarchy is at least tolerable. There are no crimes involved, but it would still be best to remove the monarchy if possible, because it is still a symbol of feudal subjugation, social stratification, cruelty, tyranny, and other such things. Having a royal family gives off the wrong message.

Leftists are always quick to condemn executing people like rapists and murderers, but have no problem putting "fascists," monarchs, and other opponents to death.
Now now, don't go around lumping people into huge meaningless categories such as "leftists," unless you want me to lump you together with a bunch of other random people and call you all "rightists" even though you have nothing in common except opposition to my views.

But for the record, I have no problem using the death penalty for any of the above (rapists, murderers, fascists, monarchs), as long as the evidence of their guilt is overwhelming and their crimes were committed in broad view of many witnesses. The thing is that political leaders can't really hide their actions - most of the time, anyway - so it is easier to establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt in the case of tyrants and despots than in the case of a murderer with a single victim.

I support feudalism, aristocracy, and the complete privatization of everything.
Thank you, sir, for being a living embodiment of the link between libertarian ideology and a feudal social order. Most libertarians try really hard to deny that their ideology represents in fact a desire to return to the middle ages.

Pure meritocracy.
Since there is no way to measure "merit" (in fact, there isn't even a good definition of what exactly "merit" means), any kind of meritocracy is utterly impossible.

In practice, a "meritocracy" always amounts to an arbitrary tyranny by people who think they're better than everyone else.

I say stupid things all the time.
Truer words were never spoken. This is sig-worthy. :)

Now now, don't go around lumping people into huge meaningless categories such as "leftists,
Surely an apparent 'libertarian' would be last person on earth to do this...

Pure meritocracy.

Which calls for the exact same question....Indeed.
How do you objectively determine merit?

In practice, a "meritocracy" always amounts to an arbitrary tyranny by people who think they're better than everyone else.Indeed.

A lot of trouble in the middle ease comes from monarchies, too. Saudi Arabia and Jordan spring to mind. And, unsurprisingly, many of the Latin American countries were in fact monarchies in the nineteeth century as well, before they all imploded.

The UAE, Qatar and Kuwait also exist, as stable and prosperous nations. In addition it should be noted that whilst Jordan and Saudi Arabia are not free societies, compared to many other nations in the regions they are quite stable. Since the democratic transformation of Latin America, the region hasn't looked back. Or not, as the case may be.

There are, across history, examples of stable monarchies, stable republics, imploded monarchies and imploded republics. These are due more often to local conditions rather than any universal law of monarchies.

As I say, no universal law.

A multicultural country like Switzerland is more successful as a republic arguably because its republican model avoids having a personal head of state and opts for a collegial one.

I think we both agree the Swiss have got a very good system running, but I think their conditions are quite unusual given the makeup of the population, and the geopolitical position of the nation in Europe. I don't think the Swiss system could be easily exported.

On the other hand, Sweden's or the British monarchy has survived as over time they have adapted to the shift away from absolutism successfully, and reign over relatively homogenous states.

Indeed

I can see no correlation between success and monarchy, or for that matter, success and republic. The only 'law' I can hypothesise is that whether a constitutional monarchy or republic is 'better' depends on the country in question.

If you look at the successful nations of today, I think there is. I guess at the end of the day it comes down to ideological point of view, since there are successful nations on both sides one can point to, but it seems in the worlds more troubled areas, monarchies seem more stable (the gulf states in the mid east region... Bhutan, Thailand and Malaysia in SE Asia). But at the end of the day I am debating one of my own fundamental ideas/beliefs/ideology, as I imagine you are as well, so we both want to see and show the best of our respective systems.

One of the reasons why democracy is always limited to some degree. I dount you will find many democrats who espouce an unlimited democracy.

And a constitutional monarchy (with real powers for the Monarch) is a limited democracy that maintains the balance...

If a legislature filled partially by inheritance such a good way of ensuring good government, why are the UK and Tonga the only two countries to choose such a model and, undoubtedly, be so badly governed? Even other European monarchies like Sweden and Norway choose to have directly elected unicameral parliaments. Spain chooses its upper house almost entirely by direct election and partially by indirect election.

I confess I don't know enough to comment on the Tongan system, but I suspect the reason in the UK for the mess that is the UK's system lies more with the handing out of honours like so much party confetti than due to serious and inherent faults in the hereditary system. After all, for a long time were ruled well. It is only recently that the nation was sold for scrap.

The only reason I have seen people support an inherited lords is in order to ensure a big and little 'c' conservative bias in the legislature, although most never admit it.

Except that I support a hereditary Lords, and wouldn't consider myself a conservative, at least in the economic sense.

If you want a better buffer against the arbitary power of the dominant faction in the Commons, I'd take proportional representation (to add in thternal set of checks and balances in the executive and legislature) and a strong written constitution and bill of rights any day, rather than relying on the mercy of oligarchy if aristocrats in the Lords.

This does not create a balance, for the same people would be choosing both the Commons and the Lords. This offers no protection against knee-jerk reactions, uninformed or misinformed decisions, single issue voting and personality politics. The public are also a power in the land, and the same safeguards needs to be applies to their decisions as much as to any politician. The US political system offers a clear demonstration of this problem.

<snip> and the monarch must be immediately deposed and put on trial for crimes against the people. This is the case with the absolute monarchies of the Arabian peninsula, as well as Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei etc.

I would assume that such an act would be committed so that a democratic ruler could be installed. This being so, wouldn't be in the spirit of democracy to allow the decision on whether or not this act should be committed, to be decided by a vote, as was the case in Australia in 1999, rather than forcing "regime change" upon people without concern for their own views, as you seem to be implying. Surely that in itself is a tyrannical act of the kind you accuse every single Monarch (except those who are "powerless") of committing.

Also, of what crimes agaist humanity would you be charging the Monarch with?

<snip> There are no crimes involved, but it would still be best to remove the monarchy if possible, because it is still a symbol of feudal subjugation, social stratification, cruelty, tyranny, and other such things. Having a royal family gives off the wrong message.


That is a purely subjective view. I could say that a democracy gives off the wrong message of an anarchic society with no kind of rule of law, unity or authority and a total lack of direction and sense of higher purpose. That would be equally subjective.

Technically speaking, I oppose monarchy but, on more pragmatic grounds, I generally support the keeping of the British monarchy, simply because I believe it to be the lesser of two evils. Just look at the sort of people that neighbouring countries have elected to represent them:

George Bush: an idiot

Jacques Chirac: a crook and a liar

Vladimir Putin: a former colonel in the KGB

Silvio Berlusconi: a Mafia controlled crook

In comparison, the problems with the Windsors have are minuscule. At least the Queen has dignity and almost certainly hasn't perpetrated massive acts of financial fraud by abusing her position as head of state. At least Prince Charles can spell 'homeopathy', which is more than can be said for Bush.

As for the argument of cost, the British monarchy actually is quite inexpensive: as of 2006, it cost each British tax payer 62p a year. That is actually cheaper than a can of coke from my local corner shop (65p). The idea that a republic would save us money is nonsense: we would still have to fund the President and his family and we would also have to pay for presidential elections every four or five years (which probably would not be cheap). Not to mention the expenses that would be incurred in the constitutional reconstruction that would have to occur if we abolished the monarchy.

That is a purely subjective view.

No, it really isn't.

As a matter of simple fact, that's what (real) monarchies are and what (real) monarchies have historically done.

Why anyone would want a national symbol on that model is beyond me.

I could say that a democracy gives off the wrong message of an anarchic society with no kind of rule of law, unity or authority and a total lack of direction and sense of higher purpose.

That, on the other hand, is arbitrary and baseless.

The UAE, Qatar and Kuwait also exist, as stable and prosperous nations. In addition it should be noted that whilst Jordan and Saudi Arabia are not free societies, compared to many other nations in the regions they are quite stable. Since the democratic transformation of Latin America, the region hasn't looked back. Or not, as the case may be.
I can't quite grasp what you're thinking here. Latin America is better off now than under military regimes, and I don't think either of us would disagree with that. With regards to the Middle East, there are just as stable republics as monarchies (and tyrannical) such as Syria and Yemen.

As I say, no universal law.

I think we both agree the Swiss have got a very good system running, but I think their conditions are quite unusual given the makeup of the population, and the geopolitical position of the nation in Europe. I don't think the Swiss system could be easily exported.
Exactly. How a country is best governed depends on the demographics, history and political culture of the country in question. This can either be republic or a constitutional monarchy. I doubt there are many that would want to give their monarch any political power, but Liechenstein did in a referendum, but I don't know whether there is a difference there between what powers a monarch has in law and practice there as we do in the UK.

If you look at the successful nations of today, I think there is. I guess at the end of the day it comes down to ideological point of view, since there are successful nations on both sides one can point to, but it seems in the worlds more troubled areas, monarchies seem more stable (the gulf states in the mid east region... Bhutan, Thailand and Malaysia in SE Asia). But at the end of the day I am debating one of my own fundamental ideas/beliefs/ideology, as I imagine you are as well, so we both want to see and show the best of our respective systems.
Again, I would argue that stability can be found in both republics and monarchies. One is not globally superior, and any that is too authoritarian or unpopular can be overthrown and replaced.

And a constitutional monarchy (with real powers for the Monarch) is a limited democracy that maintains the balance...
But a bad way to do it. A constitution and bill of rights is far less arbitary than relying on the personal whims of a monarch. I'd far rather have a rational system where there are a set of ground rules and expert judges decide whether a law or action violates those rules, rather than one individual deciding things based perhaps on their own political opinions.

I confess I don't know enough to comment on the Tongan system, but I suspect the reason in the UK for the mess that is the UK's system lies more with the handing out of honours like so much party confetti than due to serious and inherent faults in the hereditary system. After all, for a long time were ruled well. It is only recently that the nation was sold for scrap.
It worked well because the Lords recognised the primacy of the Commons, even before the 1911 Parliament Act. It was only when the Lords broke precident and vetoed the Irish Home Rule Act and People's Budget that the Commons took action to curb their powers in law. As such, the Lords is now relatively impotent, and I'd much rather have an elected upper house with full powers to veto legislation and the popular mandate to do so.

Persoanlly, I'd argue that the honours system and the legislature should remain separate, whether the Lords be elected, appointed or inherited.

Except that I support a hereditary Lords, and wouldn't consider myself a conservative, at least in the economic sense.
Perhaps i'm being too cynical. I'm running from personal anecdotes here.

This does not create a balance, for the same people would be choosing both the Commons and the Lords. This offers no protection against knee-jerk reactions, uninformed or misinformed decisions, single issue voting and personality politics. The public are also a power in the land, and the same safeguards needs to be applies to their decisions as much as to any politician. The US political system offers a clear demonstration of this problem.
And what makes a monarch any less likely to make bad decisions? History is littered with mad, bad and sad monarchs, from Louis XVI to Gyanendra. Democracy, and representative democracy at that, are far from perfect, but it's far better than having power vested in an even less accountable monarchicy who can excercise power over his or her subjects in a completely arbitary fashion. Putting political power in a monarch would also change its status completely from the (usually) unifying image we have today to one tainted by politics with political enemies when it makes unpopular decisions. That's not something any wastern monarchy wants.

I would assume that such an act would be committed so that a democratic ruler could be installed. This being so, wouldn't be in the spirit of democracy to allow the decision on whether or not this act should be committed, to be decided by a vote, as was the case in Australia in 1999, rather than forcing "regime change" upon people without concern for their own views, as you seem to be implying. Surely that in itself is a tyrannical act of the kind you accuse every single Monarch (except those who are "powerless") of committing.
It is absurd to ask people if they want a democracy, since the very act of asking them presumes the validity of democratic decision-making.

It's like asking a person if he wants to answer your question. One of those self-referential logical paradoxes, I suppose.

Also, of what crimes agaist humanity would you be charging the Monarch with?
Stealing and hoarding a substantial part of the nation's wealth (enormous oil revenues in the case of the Arabian monarchies), supporting an arbitrary and inhuman justice system, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple ways, suppressing civil liberties and political freedoms, and quite possibly direct murder of political opponents.

That is a purely subjective view. I could say that a democracy gives off the wrong message of an anarchic society with no kind of rule of law, unity or authority and a total lack of direction and sense of higher purpose. That would be equally subjective.
Well, no, my view wasn't subjective, it was a description of the historical record of monarchies.

Your view of democracy is factually incorrect in at least one respect - democracies have almost universally had stronger rule of law than any other system of government.

But just because I oppose monarchy doesn't mean I don't want a government to have a sense of direction or a higher purpose. I rather like the office of the Governor General as it exists in Canada, for example - I'd just like to strip away the monarchical trappings and make it a republican institution. Also, as a Marxist, I strongly believe that a [socialist] government should have as its ultimate goal the creation of a communist society, and a country's constitution and state institutions should reflect this.

Though I like anarchy most of all, I prefer monarchy over democracy. I would prefer as much liberal custom to protect me as possible, however. But given the choice between a ruler against whom one's authority is jealously guarded against, and who is interested in the value of his realm for his long-term consumption and that of his family's, versus an all-powerful abstract being ("the people") in whose name charlatans steal as much as they can while they are still in office, I will always prefer the former.

I was reading something about Arrow's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_paradox), which mathematically proves you can't have a perfect democracy (though you can come very close, if you let some criteria slide). It said that at times, the best way to break a deadlock was with a randomly chosen dictator. As monarchs are chosen based on who their parents are (fairly random), I'd say it would be good for that.
Besides that, I don't really see the purpose of having a monarchy. National pride, I guess.

I'm all for monarchy as long as I'm the one who gets to wear the fancy hat. :D

I apologise for the late reply, I've been putting in the hours at work and also studies this week.


It is absurd to ask people if they want a democracy, since the very act of asking them presumes the validity of democratic decision-making.
It's like asking a person if he wants to answer your question. One of those self-referential logical paradoxes, I suppose.


In an abstract way, maybe, but on the ground, since the one doing the "regime change" assumeably accepts the validity of the democratic system then surely they would be bound by those principles to seek the consensus of the people on whom they wish to impose that system. Otherwise the whole thing would decend into another Iraq quite quickly. Most people don't take kindly to their system of government being changed by an outside force, regardless of it's intentions.


Stealing and hoarding a substantial part of the nation's wealth (enormous oil revenues in the case of the Arabian monarchies), supporting an arbitrary and inhuman justice system, violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple ways, suppressing civil liberties and political freedoms, and quite possibly direct murder of political opponents.

And with the exception of the first (which you say will only apply to the Arab states, hmmm) does the rest apply to everyone? Seems kinda OTT to me. I think your democratic project may run into a few problems here.


Well, no, my view wasn't subjective, it was a description of the historical record of monarchies.
Your view of democracy is factually incorrect in at least one respect - democracies have almost universally had stronger rule of law than any other system of government.


Is that so? Let's go for corruption, seems as good an indication as rule of law as any other. According to Transparency International:

Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Japan all rank amongst least corrupt of nations overall. These nations are also known for having a generally good adherence to rule of law and not abusing their people to excess. They are all constitutional monarchies.


But just because I oppose monarchy doesn't mean I don't want a government to have a sense of direction or a higher purpose. I rather like the office of the Governor General as it exists in Canada, for example - I'd just like to strip away the monarchical trappings and make it a republican institution.

If it's OK as it is, why change it?


Also, as a Marxist, I strongly believe that a [socialist] government should have as its ultimate goal the creation of a communist society, and a country's constitution and state institutions should reflect this.

That you have a defined goal and vision for a government is admirable, regardless of how it differs from mine. It's something I wish our politicians had too. However, we see most democracies quickly becoming embroiled in endless compromise and manoeuvring shedding any long term higher aim to try and gain as larger share of the electoral pie as possible.


I can't quite grasp what you're thinking here. Latin America is better off now than under military regimes, and I don't think either of us would disagree with that. With regards to the Middle East, there are just as stable republics as monarchies (and tyrannical) such as Syria and Yemen.



I think there is a difference between a military dictatorship and a monarchy.


Exactly. How a country is best governed depends on the demographics, history and political culture of the country in question. This can either be republic or a constitutional monarchy. I doubt there are many that would want to give their monarch any political power, but Liechenstein did in a referendum, but I don't know whether there is a difference there between what powers a monarch has in law and practice there as we do in the UK.



I agree each country is different. What I don't like is how some people think that the republican model should be welcomed by everyone everywhere. I wouldn't want to see my country ever become a republic, and I doubt most Americans would want a monarchy, and I don't think any one nation should try to enforce either system on any other. There should be more respect for national sovereignty.


Again, I would argue that stability can be found in both republics and monarchies. One is not globally superior, and any that is too authoritarian or unpopular can be overthrown and replaced.



By it's own people, preferably. Though I'm not a big fan of revolution from below, if any ruler (born, elected or whatever) can't run their nation well enough to keep people from storming the halls of power, and can't get it together enough to bring it under control, then in all fairness, they had it coming...


But a bad way to do it. A constitution and bill of rights is far less arbitary than relying on the personal whims of a monarch. I'd far rather have a rational system where there are a set of ground rules and expert judges decide whether a law or action violates those rules, rather than one individual deciding things based perhaps on their own political opinions.

Constitutions are easily changed, and selectively interpreted. The current wrangles over constitutional matters in Venezuela and the attempt to bring in constitutional amendments to block gay marriage in the US show this clearly. A constitution cannot speak, but a Monarch can. I think Thailand is a clear example of how this can be good.



Personally, I'd argue that the honours system and the legislature should remain separate, whether the Lords be elected, appointed or inherited.


Absolutely.


Perhaps i'm being too cynical. I'm running from personal anecdotes here.


Cynicism is usually good when it comes to political issues, my friend.


And what makes a monarch any less likely to make bad decisions?


A Monarch is trained to rule from the day they are born. A politician is is not. It's not a guarantee, but it's the best solution that springs to mind, unless you subscribe to the divine right to rule philosophy (another debate for another time, methinks), and better than choosing someone with potentially zero meaningful training or experience.


Democracy, and representative democracy at that, are far from perfect, but it's far better than having power vested in an even less accountable monarchicy who can excercise power over his or her subjects in a completely arbitary fashion.

A constitutional arrangement by virtue of it's nature doesn't grant absolute and unaccountable power. It's all a matter of degree. Because I favour more power for the Monarch than the current arrangement in the United Kingdom doesn't necessarily mean I feel complete and absolute power is ideal. In addition to the constitutional fail safes, Monarchs also have the hereditary factor which is in itself a safeguard. If you abuse the position and try to grab the loot or abuse power, you risk not just yourself, but your entire family loosing a position they would otherwise hold for good, and a position you yourself would have held for life. A politician has far less to loose, he only has a few years, at best, and no guarantees his descendents will benefit. That generates a "grab as mcuh as you can as fast as you can" mentality.


Putting political power in a monarch would also change its status completely from the (usually) unifying image we have today to one tainted by politics with political enemies when it makes unpopular decisions. That's not something any wastern monarchy wants.

To a certain degree, I agree this is an issue, though I don't think it's that cut and dried. That a Monarch is still by virtue of his position not chosen by any one political faction, means there is likely to be less (not zero, but less) of a view that he or she is pushing the interests of any one faction, and also does give the ability to act with impartiality in a national rather than factional interest. Obviously an elected leader from the start has a faction to answer to, both the electoral bloc that elected him and the backers who put up the resources for his campaign. Also, at the end of the day a Monarch doesn't belong to any political party. He or she only has a commitment to the nation, an elected leader will always have split loyalties.

A lot of this also depends on exactly how much the Monarch wields.

I think there is a difference between a military dictatorship and a monarchy.
To a degree, both wield personal and arbitrary power without being held to account by the governed.

I agree each country is different. What I don't like is how some people think that the republican model should be welcomed by everyone everywhere. I wouldn't want to see my country ever become a republic, and I doubt most Americans would want a monarchy, and I don't think any one nation should try to enforce either system on any other. There should be more respect for national sovereignty.
How each country is governed should be decided by its people, which ends up usually in a form of democracy within the framework of a republic or parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

By it's own people, preferably. Though I'm not a big fan of revolution from below, if any ruler (born, elected or whatever) can't run their nation well enough to keep people from storming the halls of power, and can't get it together enough to bring it under control, then in all fairness, they had it coming...
The problem is, when a monarch has political power which can run contrary to the will of the people or their popular elected representatives, that kind of rebellion is a logical consequence of that monarchy exercising that power. If a democratically accountable leader makes unpopular decisions, it is understood they can be removed in an election, and their office does not, in a mature democracy, become jeopardised. If the same happens in an unaccountable monarchy, or any other kind of unaccountable leader, there is no way to hold them accountable but to rebel.

Constitutions are easily changed, and selectively interpreted. The current wrangles over constitutional matters in Venezuela and the attempt to bring in constitutional amendments to block gay marriage in the US show this clearly. A constitution cannot speak, but a Monarch can. I think Thailand is a clear example of how this can be good.
US state constitutions are often amended by popular vote, a poor way of doing so. The point of a constitution is that it takes more than a simple majority to amend in order to protect minority rights. The constitutional amendment in Venezuela failed. There are examples of both good and bad constitutions, and not all are the same. Good, strong constitutions like those found in Europe are good guarantors of rights.

Thailand is an interesting example for you to pick. You claim that Hugo Chavez's failed attempt to amend the constitution of Venezuela shows how constitutions do not protect rights, yet claim that the King of Thailand's support of a military coup d'etat and dictatorship does not point out the same flaws in a monarchy - even when the same government as the one ousted is returned in the following general election?

A Monarch is trained to rule from the day they are born. A politician is is not. It's not a guarantee, but it's the best solution that springs to mind, unless you subscribe to the divine right to rule philosophy (another debate for another time, methinks), and better than choosing someone with potentially zero meaningful training or experience.
I highlighted the important part of that paragraph. If all monarchies were trained to rule well, then that might work. But it doesn't. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the abolition of the monarchy in Nepal, France, Germany or Italy, or the marginalisation of Monarchs in Europe during the 19th/20th century. If we have to decide who is fit, trained and has the experience to govern, it should be up to the governed to define fitness, training and experience and decide who best fits those categories. A lifetime of tax free luxury does not count as experience in my book, monarch or not.

A constitutional arrangement by virtue of it's nature doesn't grant absolute and unaccountable power. It's all a matter of degree. Because I favour more power for the Monarch than the current arrangement in the United Kingdom doesn't necessarily mean I feel complete and absolute power is ideal. In addition to the constitutional fail safes, Monarchs also have the hereditary factor which is in itself a safeguard. If you abuse the position and try to grab the loot or abuse power, you risk not just yourself, but your entire family loosing a position they would otherwise hold for good, and a position you yourself would have held for life. A politician has far less to loose, he only has a few years, at best, and no guarantees his descendents will benefit. That generates a "grab as mcuh as you can as fast as you can" mentality.
You have already given one example of a monarch abusing power, despite a hereditary control on political power. There are plenty of others. Both monarchies and democracies have reasons why they might become corrupt, and neither 'side' is without power-grabbers. Monarchs never have to face public opinion, and can exercise power in any way they like, and so can engage in any activity they like. And power without accountability is not, in my opinion, likely to lead to good government.

To a certain degree, I agree this is an issue, though I don't think it's that cut and dried. That a Monarch is still by virtue of his position not chosen by any one political faction, means there is likely to be less (not zero, but less) of a view that he or she is pushing the interests of any one faction, and also does give the ability to act with impartiality in a national rather than factional interest. Obviously an elected leader from the start has a faction to answer to, both the electoral bloc that elected him and the backers who put up the resources for his campaign. Also, at the end of the day a Monarch doesn't belong to any political party. He or she only has a commitment to the nation, an elected leader will always have split loyalties.
The problem is that when a monarch has political power they must, at some point, side with one faction against another. He or she will veto legislation one side supports and another side does not, or appoint a Prime Minister one side supports or another does not, or pass a budget one side supports and another does not. The reason our monarchies of today are seen as neutral and unifying is because we don't vest political power in them and they won't have to do this, unlike our elected leaders, who we accept that they will and can remove them. The monarch may well not be chosen by a political faction, but at some point they will have to choose one. And considering the nature of inherited political power, it will be the small-c conservative one.

A lot of this also depends on exactly how much the Monarch wields.
It also depends upon the monarch, I suppose.

Meh. There is no better leader than an enlightened monarch, but than again if that monarch has a bitch as a son you're screwed. So the system is flawed. But than again many past monarchs beat the lame politicians we have today.

There is no better leader than an enlightened monarch

Very true.

To a degree, both wield personal and arbitrary power without being held to account by the governed.


A military leader wields power purely by extreme force. A Monarch, with absolute has the option to use force, but it is not a necessary or defining feature of the system. There are numerous "velvet glove" ways to keep people in line without going though the electoral circus, or, indeed, using the electoral circus as well. Just don't let said circus ruin everything by giving it too much sway over the order of things.

The problem is, when a monarch has political power which can run contrary to the will of the people or their popular elected representatives, that kind of rebellion is a logical consequence of that monarchy exercising that power. If a democratically accountable leader makes unpopular decisions, it is understood they can be removed in an election, and their office does not, in a mature democracy, become jeopardised. If the same happens in an unaccountable monarchy, or any other kind of unaccountable leader, there is no way to hold them accountable but to rebel.

This is why I mention that absolute power is not wise. I think a final level safeguard is a wise move, whereby if a decree is seriously detrimental to the nation, that the upper (hereditary/appointed) and lower (elected) houses agree with this view (with a clear 3/4 in favour in both), that a decision can be forced back for a review, and ultimately blocked, provided there is clear and transparent evidence that it would be unequivocally be detrimental to the well-being of the nation. Ideally the law and political culture of the system would be such that this would be seen as a grave and exceptional situation which is undesirable to all involved.

US state constitutions are often amended by popular vote, a poor way of doing so. The point of a constitution is that it takes more than a simple majority to amend in order to protect minority rights. The constitutional amendment in Venezuela failed. There are examples of both good and bad constitutions, and not all are the same. Good, strong constitutions like those found in Europe are good guarantors of rights.

In Europe it is more often the political culture of the current times rather than the letter of constitutional law that protects people, or not. A constitution is dependent on the willingness of the population to follow the letter of their law. It cannot speak for itself.

Thailand is an interesting example for you to pick. You claim that Hugo Chavez's failed attempt to amend the constitution of Venezuela shows how constitutions do not protect rights, yet claim that the King of Thailand's support of a military coup d'etat and dictatorship does not point out the same flaws in a monarchy - even when the same government as the one ousted is returned in the following general election?

The responsibility of the King is to ensure what is best for the nation. In the circumstances he prevented what could easily have become civil strife and a potential conflict between government and the military. Peace and stability was ensured, and commitment for the military to ensure a smooth return to civilian government was made and honoured, and that is the national interest. The involvement of the King had much more impact than I think any number of constitutional lawyers could have done, especially in preventing violence since the general population would accept the judgement of the King before a lawyer (An entirely understandable point of view, really). It was specifically because of the coup that I chose this example.


highlighted the important part of that paragraph.

An important point that would apply to any system of government.

If all monarchies were trained to rule well, then that might work. But it doesn't. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the abolition of the monarchy in Nepal, France, Germany or Italy, or the marginalisation of Monarchs in Europe during the 19th/20th century.

The situations of Italy and Germany were more to do with the consolidation of those states into larger independent nations and the fallout of WW1 than anything else. The whole situation in Nepal I don't think is an endorsement for either side, though I think now things are only going to get worse with the Maoists.

If we have to decide who is fit, trained and has the experience to govern, it should be up to the governed to define fitness, training and experience and decide who best fits those categories. A lifetime of tax free luxury does not count as experience in my book, monarch or not.

But the governed by themselves when deciding as a mass do not make good decisions. I do not consider myself qualified to understand or decide on choosing someone with the right policies to tackle the problems of my nation, because I don't have time to dedicate to the in depth study of the issues, their policies and the full implications of those policies. I doubt I am exceptional in this respect. A Monarch is only responsible for these matters, and so has time and experience (and call call upon professional advisers), and has had the sense of responsibility instilled, to be able to deal with these matters much more effectively than you or I.

You have already given one example of a monarch abusing power, despite a hereditary control on political power. There are plenty of others. Both monarchies and democracies have reasons why they might become corrupt, and neither 'side' is without power-grabbers. Monarchs never have to face public opinion, and can exercise power in any way they like, and so can engage in any activity they like. And power without accountability is not, in my opinion, likely to lead to good government.

Royal power was used to good effect in preventing the coup becoming bloody and leading the nation to a dark place. That is use, not abuse.
The problem is that when a monarch has political power they must, at some point, side with one faction against another. He or she will veto legislation one side supports and another side does not, or appoint a Prime Minister one side supports or another does not, or pass a budget one side supports and another does not. The reason our monarchies of today are seen as neutral and unifying is because we don't vest political power in them and they won't have to do this, unlike our elected leaders, who we accept that they will and can remove them. The monarch may well not be chosen by a political faction, but at some point they will have to choose one. And considering the nature of inherited political power, it will be the small-c conservative one.

There is an important difference between taking a particular decision that one faction advocates at one point, and a different one at another, when each decision is in the national interest, than in siding consistently with one faction, regardless of the nation. Take the Thai situation as an example. On some occasions, the King has done things that please the democrats, at others, the military. There is no favouring of either side, each action was, at the time, what the nation needed. IN acting in the interests of the nation, this will mean at one time do things that the "small c conservatives" would like, and at others what the liberals would like. it doesn't mean an allegiance to either side, simply that at the time their wishes happen also to be what would be best for the nation, and others wishes are not.

It also depends upon the monarch, I suppose.

Quite true. Though there's no such thing as bad Monarchs, just bad subjects, ideologically speaking :D

I am an American which was founded on the republican idea that there is no room for a king in government. I find no fault in that thinking. However, I have a "conservationist" view of monarchies. I see them as an endangered or relic species. It would be a shame to see monarchies vanish from the face of the Earth.

Not all monarchies are equal in coolness. I think that what makes a monarch cool is how long the dynasty lasted. This makes the Shah of Iran the kind of moarch who was merely just a tyrantical dictator who called himself a king whereas the last king of Ethiopia was a tyrantical dictator who was a real king. I sort of suspect that the last Ethipoian king was a nasty tyrant. However, I think it is sad that there is no more ethiopian monarchy because the Ethiopian dynasty of kings was long and probably contained the blood of King David or at least his so Solomon.

I heard that according to Shinto creation myth the Japanese monarchy was pretty much created at the dawn of time. Does anyone know more about this myth or have any idea when the Japanese monarchy began? It is my limited understanding (from the History channel) of early Japanese history that at some point Chinese settlers moved to Japan and encountered an agrarian Caucassoid race of people and pretty much exterminated them. Do historians think that it was the leader of these settlers that started the Japanese monarchy?

My favorite modern day monarch is hands down the King of Bhutan. I think that he rocks.

A military leader wields power purely by extreme force. A Monarch, with absolute has the option to use force, but it is not a necessary or defining feature of the system. There are numerous "velvet glove" ways to keep people in line without going though the electoral circus, or, indeed, using the electoral circus as well. Just don't let said circus ruin everything by giving it too much sway over the order of things.
I can't see any difference between a military regime introducing and enforcing unpopular policy or a monarch doing it. Either way, government is not accountable to the governed, but to a small elite. I'll take democracy over both military dictatorship and (what you describe below) a constitutional, monarchical dictatorship.

This is why I mention that absolute power is not wise. I think a final level safeguard is a wise move, whereby if a decree is seriously detrimental to the nation, that the upper (hereditary/appointed) and lower (elected) houses agree with this view (with a clear 3/4 in favour in both), that a decision can be forced back for a review, and ultimately blocked, provided there is clear and transparent evidence that it would be unequivocally be detrimental to the well-being of the nation. Ideally the law and political culture of the system would be such that this would be seen as a grave and exceptional situation which is undesirable to all involved.
I cannot think of a single democratic country based on the rule of law that gives such a huge amount of political power to an elected, let alone an unelected leader. While your monarch may not be a de jure absolute dictator, given the fact that one house of the legislature has an immediate aristocratic monarchical bias, and the huge supermajorities needed to overturn a royal decision in both, it's a de facto absolute monarch, one that could become vastly unpopular with the public with no escape in sight.

In Europe it is more often the political culture of the current times rather than the letter of constitutional law that protects people, or not. A constitution is dependent on the willingness of the population to follow the letter of their law. It cannot speak for itself.
That is true of any law, including one made my a monarch. Just because a monarch is a person does not make their opinion somehow binding on those opinions of the general public. I doubt, however, that a political culture of respect for constitutional rights and guarantees could develop under a near-absolute monarch where, instead of legal debate in the courts, a monarch has the power to veto any legislation, for any reason, in an arbitrary fashion.

The responsibility of the King is to ensure what is best for the nation. In the circumstances he prevented what could easily have become civil strife and a potential conflict between government and the military. Peace and stability was ensured, and commitment for the military to ensure a smooth return to civilian government was made and honoured, and that is the national interest. The involvement of the King had much more impact than I think any number of constitutional lawyers could have done, especially in preventing violence since the general population would accept the judgement of the King before a lawyer (An entirely understandable point of view, really). It was specifically because of the coup that I chose this example.
The people of Thailand had already decided what was best for the nation, and that was to have the government they had elected. Plenty of dictatorships have decided they knew what was best for the nation over and above its people from the Soviet Union to Louis XIV. Had the King and Military of Thailand had decided they were interested in peace and stability of Thailand and the rights of its people, they would not have lead a coup and instead allow the elections, ordered by the Constitutional Court to go ahead, to continue.

This coup shows exactly why giving a monarch that kind of authority, de jure or, as in this case, de facto, should be completely opposed. It is not the job of a monarch to dismiss governments and suspend the rights of their subjects at personal will.

An important point that would apply to any system of government.
Except an unfit democratic ruler can be removed if the people so judge. A monarch cannot.

The situations of Italy and Germany were more to do with the consolidation of those states into larger independent nations and the fallout of WW1 than anything else. The whole situation in Nepal I don't think is an endorsement for either side, though I think now things are only going to get worse with the Maoists.
Surely if these monarchies were so well trained as you claim, they would have been better suited and able to deal with the fallout from WW1 and WW2 respectively, and indeed do so better than the republican leaders that followed. With regards to Nepal, it is now that the Nepalese government will formally abolish the monarchy completely that the Maoists have rejoined the government and a peace deal can be reached after the republican constitution is written later this year.

But the governed by themselves when deciding as a mass do not make good decisions. I do not consider myself qualified to understand or decide on choosing someone with the right policies to tackle the problems of my nation, because I don't have time to dedicate to the in depth study of the issues, their policies and the full implications of those policies. I doubt I am exceptional in this respect. A Monarch is only responsible for these matters, and so has time and experience (and call call upon professional advisers), and has had the sense of responsibility instilled, to be able to deal with these matters much more effectively than you or I.
Believe it or not, monarchs are not divine, superhuman, or bestowed with intelligence above and beyond that of their subjects. They too are human. Our next King talks to pot plants and thinks we are to consumed by grey goo should we continue with nanotechnology. Harry can't even pass an Art A-Level without getting help on the side and can't even summon up the wits to realise that dressing up as a Nazi isn't a good idea. I wouldn't call that good decision making and responsibility over and above that of the general public.

Neither can I see why the general public are unable to listen to the opinions of experts. Most people concede that they want clinicians, not politicians, running the NHS, for example.

Royal power was used to good effect in preventing the coup becoming bloody and leading the nation to a dark place. That is use, not abuse.
The Monarchy created the coup in the first place and thus prevented the constitutional means that could have solved the crisis from ever taking place, and in doing so ended Thailand's longest period without coups and suspensions of democracy. And in doing so, reversed the democratic 1997 Constitution and created a new, aristocratic one that legalises their coup.

I'd hate to see what you define as abusing power.

There is an important difference between taking a particular decision that one faction advocates at one point, and a different one at another, when each decision is in the national interest, than in siding consistently with one faction, regardless of the nation. Take the Thai situation as an example. On some occasions, the King has done things that please the democrats, at others, the military. There is no favouring of either side, each action was, at the time, what the nation needed. IN acting in the interests of the nation, this will mean at one time do things that the "small c conservatives" would like, and at others what the liberals would like. it doesn't mean an allegiance to either side, simply that at the time their wishes happen also to be what would be best for the nation, and others wishes are not.
Why would a monarch in the name of 'the interests of the nation' not want to side with one political faction? European political monarchs did. The German Emperors had the Junkers and the Army. The Italians had the old Sardinian aristocracy. We had a nice, cosy elite of Lords and the mercantile classes. It seems that Monarchs do have a constituency - themselves and their ilk, which was what the Thai coup was all about preserving. Regardless of how many times the King of Thailand kindly decided to press the interest of his people over the army and elite, it is not the remit of a single person to decide what is in the interests of the nation and what the nation needs but the nation itself.

Quite true. Though there's no such thing as bad Monarchs, just bad subjects, ideologically speaking :D
Pity people don't do what they are told so easy.

I can't see any difference between a military regime introducing and enforcing unpopular policy or a monarch doing it. Either way, government is not accountable to the governed, but to a small elite. I'll take democracy over both military dictatorship and (what you describe below) a constitutional, monarchical dictatorship.

A military dictatorship has no rules or norms governing how it should behave, nor is there any form of representation. A constitutional monarchy (regardless of how much or how little power is vested in the Monarch directly) has institutions and procedures to ensure everyone is protected and a mechanism to ensure they are represented. A military dictatorship has nothing beyond the military.

I cannot think of a single democratic country based on the rule of law that gives such a huge amount of political power to an elected, let alone an unelected leader.

Neither can I, but then it's not a democratic idea. I don't see it as a democratic system but as a represented one, where the lower house ensures that the populace has a voice in government, and it's needs are represented. It does not, however, have supreme authority, except in exceptional circumstances.

That is true of any law, including one made my a monarch. Just because a monarch is a person does not make their opinion somehow binding on those opinions of the general public.

The difference being that a paper constitution with no one to speak for it can be intentionally misinterpreted or dug through until any number of loopholes can be identified and exploited, wheras a Monarch can speak for him or herself. It doesn't make those opinions binding, but it does make those opinions known unequivocally.

Plenty of dictatorships have decided they knew what was best for the nation over and above its people from the Soviet Union to Louis XIV.

Because a leader who is not elected decides what is best does not automatically mean the populace oppose it. I haven't been asked to vote for Gordon Brown, but that doesn't mean I hate everything he does. I don't agree with everything the Queen says either, it doesn't mean I feel an overwhelming urge to charge down the street waving a banner and shouting reformasi slogans.

Had the King and Military of Thailand had decided they were interested in peace and stability of Thailand and the rights of its people, they would not have lead a coup and instead allow the elections, ordered by the Constitutional Court to go ahead, to continue.

I don't recall King Bhumibol "leading" any coup. He judged that the way to preserve peace and order and return to civilian rule without violence was to endorse the coup in return for a peaceful return to civilian government in a set space of time, and that's what he achieved. I really don't see any conspiracy theories in this. If you had tanks rolling down your city street, you and I would both do the same, I'm sure.

This coup shows exactly why giving a monarch that kind of authority, de jure or, as in this case, de facto, should be completely opposed. It is not the job of a monarch to dismiss governments and suspend the rights of their subjects at personal will.

I think it is somewhat unrealistic to say he dismissed the government on a mere whim.

Except an unfit democratic ruler can be removed if the people so judge. A monarch cannot.

The people who so judge as to want to replace their leaders over silly trivialities that only encourage short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions. Take the Clinton impeachment.

Surely if these monarchies were so well trained as you claim, they would have been better suited and able to deal with the fallout from WW1 and WW2 respectively, and indeed do so better than the republican leaders that followed.

The fashion at the time was (and still is, to a lesser degree) for republics. In addition the US was keen to see completely new governments, which usually meant a republic.

With regards to Nepal, it is now that the Nepalese government will formally abolish the monarchy completely that the Maoists have rejoined the government and a peace deal can be reached after the republican constitution is written later this year.

As I said, no one is coming out of this mess looking very good. It doesn't inspire confidence in the democrats to jump into bed with the maoists, though I may be surprised...

Believe it or not, monarchs are not divine, superhuman, or bestowed with intelligence above and beyond that of their subjects. They too are human. Our next King talks to pot plants and thinks we are to consumed by grey goo should we continue with nanotechnology. Harry can't even pass an Art A-Level without getting help on the side and can't even summon up the wits to realise that dressing up as a Nazi isn't a good idea. I wouldn't call that good decision making and responsibility over and above that of the general public.

You say I deify Monarchs, yet you do the same with the subjects. The populace is neither good, selfless, intelligent or rational. The difference between the hoi polloi and a Monarch is, again, that the latter is raised from birth to deal with these matters, and you and I, to put it bluntly, are not. It is not necessary to believe that he or she is divine, but a Monarch is born to rule - and so brought up accordingly.

My personal views on Prince Harry are neither relevant nor important. There are a few things to bear in mind, the most important being that the current generation of the Royal family have been raised with the view that their power is purely symbolic, so the upbringing is completely different to that which might be expected for a Monarch who would rule with real and significant power. The attitude of the hoi polloi is likewise conditioned to see them as a focus of celebrity gossip rather than state authority.

Despite this, I have a great deal of confidence in the Royal family of our country, moreso than any and all of our politicians, and certainly in the heir.

Neither can I see why the general public are unable to listen to the opinions of experts. Most people concede that they want clinicians, not politicians, running the NHS, for example.

They are interested in experts running the NHS for them, not asking their opinion, then trying to do it themselves. The populace have neither the time (nor in most cases, the inclination) to consult with experts about on the policy implications of candidates, so they can decide who to vote for. I don't have the time to look at a comprehensive analysis of the European constitution, or the next gen nuclear power stations before deciding how to vote, so what's the point in asking me to choose between candidates who make nice soundbites on these issues (or don't)? And I do try and follow politics and current affairs, as it interests me. A lot of people find it dull and/or depressing, and spend more time watching Sky Sports and Big Brother than BBC Parliament and Al Jazeera.

I'd hate to see what you define as abusing power.

Perhaps triggering a tragic yet pointless civil war...?

Why would a monarch in the name of 'the interests of the nation' not want to side with one political faction?

Siding consistently with one faction when it is not in the greater interest would undermine a rulers credibility, and cause insatiability. It's a case of degree. If you do anything to excess, to the detriment of the country as a whole, is going invite problems. You may help your friends, most people could care less, but if you sell out the country for them, people may take a dim view of that, once they stop watching the football long enough to notice. No sane person is ever going to intentionally give themselves problems they can avoid.

It seems that Monarchs do have a constituency - themselves and their ilk, which was what the Thai coup was all about preserving.

The opinion of the people does not seem to bear this out, however.

Pity people don't do what they are told so easy.

Not really. You and I do it at work all the time. And philosophically, accepting we have to do things that we may not personally want to do, but which bring wider benefit, are in important part of that of functioning in a mature society, and that applies to both ruler and the ruled alike.

A military dictatorship has no rules or norms governing how it should behave, nor is there any form of representation. A constitutional monarchy (regardless of how much or how little power is vested in the Monarch directly) has institutions and procedures to ensure everyone is protected and a mechanism to ensure they are represented. A military dictatorship has nothing beyond the military.
Having institutions and procedures to ensure representation is all very well, but unless these representative institutions have the power and authority to govern over and above that of the monarch, or military for that matter, their presence is meaningless. The situation remains that the highest authority in government is unaccountable, and that authority does not lie with a representative assembly. They may well be different on paper, but share many similarities in the way they operate and derive their authority.

Neither can I, but then it's not a democratic idea. I don't see it as a democratic system but as a represented one, where the lower house ensures that the populace has a voice in government, and it's needs are represented. It does not, however, have supreme authority, except in exceptional circumstances.
If it is not have supreme authority in most cases (I think we agree not in all cases), how can it ensure its needs are met?

The difference being that a paper constitution with no one to speak for it can be intentionally misinterpreted or dug through until any number of loopholes can be identified and exploited, wheras a Monarch can speak for him or herself. It doesn't make those opinions binding, but it does make those opinions known unequivocally.
Can a monarch not misinterpret constitutional law, either intentionally or unintentionally? Matters of constitutional law should be settled in the courts through rational legal debate, not be the arbitrary opinion of one man or woman. The purpose of our highest courts is to speak for and guard it, whether it is written or not, and thus far have done a pretty damn good job.

Because a leader who is not elected decides what is best does not automatically mean the populace oppose it. I haven't been asked to vote for Gordon Brown, but that doesn't mean I hate everything he does. I don't agree with everything the Queen says either, it doesn't mean I feel an overwhelming urge to charge down the street waving a banner and shouting reformasi slogans.
The difference being that neither the Queen or brown are near absolute Constitutional monarchs. People know that Brown must as some point submit his government to the will of the people and be judged by them in a general election. If, however, there was no way to remove Gordon Brown from power and he had the kind of powers you enumerated for your ideal constitutional monarch, the situation might well be different.

I don't recall King Bhumibol "leading" any coup. He judged that the way to preserve peace and order and return to civilian rule without violence was to endorse the coup in return for a peaceful return to civilian government in a set space of time, and that's what he achieved. I really don't see any conspiracy theories in this. If you had tanks rolling down your city street, you and I would both do the same, I'm sure.
If Bhumibol was interested in civilian government, why endorse the coup in the first place - especially when the Constitutional Court had already planned elections in order to resolve the crisis, without recourse to military government? Given the authority that the King has in Thailand, it is unlikely that it would have continued without his support, and civilian rule would have remained. It do not see why it is right to endorse a coup whether for six months, years or decades.

I think it is somewhat unrealistic to say he dismissed the government on a mere whim.
I said personal will, not whim. I meant that ultimately he, and only he, was in the position where he could personally choose whether to remove an elected government and their constitutional rights or not.

The people who so judge as to want to replace their leaders over silly trivialities that only encourage short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions. Take the Clinton impeachment.
Or, rather, lack of impeachment.

The fashion at the time was (and still is, to a lesser degree) for republics. In addition the US was keen to see completely new governments, which usually meant a republic.
If the fashion of the time was for republics, there still must have been a reason they felt they were better than monarchies. Furthermore, why would the USA want other countries to be republics? They left Greece and Italy as monarchies, and later even went on to set up a monarchy in South Vietnam.

As I said, no one is coming out of this mess looking very good. It doesn't inspire confidence in the democrats to jump into bed with the maoists, though I may be surprised...
Why not? I feel that a ceasefire and coalition is preferable to civil war with the monarchy.

You say I deify Monarchs, yet you do the same with the subjects. The populace is neither good, selfless, intelligent or rational. The difference between the hoi polloi and a Monarch is, again, that the latter is raised from birth to deal with these matters, and you and I, to put it bluntly, are not. It is not necessary to believe that he or she is divine, but a Monarch is born to rule - and so brought up accordingly.

My personal views on Prince Harry are neither relevant nor important. There are a few things to bear in mind, the most important being that the current generation of the Royal family have been raised with the view that their power is purely symbolic, so the upbringing is completely different to that which might be expected for a Monarch who would rule with real and significant power. The attitude of the hoi polloi is likewise conditioned to see them as a focus of celebrity gossip rather than state authority.

Despite this, I have a great deal of confidence in the Royal family of our country, moreso than any and all of our politicians, and certainly in the heir.
So, let me get this straight. You say that a monarch will, as a result of their inherited position, be trained to rule and act appropriately. Yet, even putting the historical abuse of power for monarchies with political power abroad aside for a moment, when the monarchy here behaves inappropriately, it is suddenly 'unimportant'? The monarch is still the head of state and the monarchy a hugely symbolic icon. I see no reason why their upbringing should be any different as a figurehead without political power as a figurehead with political power.

Oh, and there wouldn't be such a thing as celebrity gossip about the monarchy if they weren't so willing to provide it.

They are interested in experts running the NHS for them, not asking their opinion, then trying to do it themselves. The populace have neither the time (nor in most cases, the inclination) to consult with experts about on the policy implications of candidates, so they can decide who to vote for. I don't have the time to look at a comprehensive analysis of the European constitution, or the next gen nuclear power stations before deciding how to vote, so what's the point in asking me to choose between candidates who make nice soundbites on these issues (or don't)? And I do try and follow politics and current affairs, as it interests me. A lot of people find it dull and/or depressing, and spend more time watching Sky Sports and Big Brother than BBC Parliament and Al Jazeera.
Undoubtedly. But it also works. I assure you, I feel well more informed and able to vote effectively than many of my peers. But most, if not all, attempts to govern with no popular support haven't ended well.

Perhaps triggering a tragic yet pointless civil war...?
*Cough*Charles I*Cough*

Siding consistently with one faction when it is not in the greater interest would undermine a rulers credibility, and cause insatiability. It's a case of degree. If you do anything to excess, to the detriment of the country as a whole, is going invite problems. You may help your friends, most people could care less, but if you sell out the country for them, people may take a dim view of that, once they stop watching the football long enough to notice. No sane person is ever going to intentionally give themselves problems they can avoid.
There are two issues here. The first is why the monarch would act in the greater interest (in other words, contrary to democratic will), and whether it is right to do so. I think we've already covered these in this post, so I won't do so again.

The opinion of the people does not seem to bear this out, however.
The opinion of which people on what?

Not really. You and I do it at work all the time. And philosophically, accepting we have to do things that we may not personally want to do, but which bring wider benefit, are in important part of that of functioning in a mature society, and that applies to both ruler and the ruled alike.
However, most of us have a degree of choice where we work, and if we do not like the way it is governed there are options, albeit in a limited fashion. If we see a wider benefit, yes people do accept they don't get what they want, in the same way people accept a government they voted against. However, when people don't see a 'greater good' - as you say we often don't - would the same thing happen?

I love the Queen, she fucking rocks. Rule Britannia!