Monarchy

[Caid Ivik]

Well, as I am not sure what is a point of "Politics of FED2k" thread, certainly it isn't talking about theories of aristocracy, feudalism and monarchy. Well, TMA, here you are.

Monarchy and aristocracy itself aren't governments, which must fully replace democratic system. Constitutional monarchies are very popular in today's world, also in aristocracy it doesn't mean we don't have to choose which aristocrat should lead.

[Egeides]

Sure, but how can aristocrat be chosen? Presently, we are chosing someone over someone else, and it doesn't make them aristocrats.

[Anathema]

Monarchy's a pretty hollowed out term, literally it would mean that the king would be in charge of a nation but these days their role is only ceremonial. I don't think we should get rid of the Dutch royal family but I don't see the point in starting one in nations that are currently republican.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

it is ok for a people to have a centered person. like King of Queen. I think that it is ok, although they don't contribute to much when it comes to politics

[Caid Ivik]

I like it how it was said in House Corrino: a "lighthouse", showing all their common values, culture, civilisation, patrial state...

[Egeides]

Caid, you mean that in your way of looking at it, a useful monarchy would be some cultural "lighthouse"? Hey, aren't kings and queens often not very recommandable?...

Voltaire, Diderot, and the ones who were the "Lumieres" (=Lights) and brang the "Siecle des Lumieres" (=Century of Lights) were not really with the monarchy on the same side: they had the monarchy against them.

[Caid Ivik]

I am not talking about some kind of centralistic authocracy, I was referring to Emperor Harkonnen's point at their (norwegian) monarchy. That's it, constitutional, limited monarchy. If austrian emperors would give more power to their parliament and regional governments, even map of today's Europe would me much different.

To be sure, check out how that "illuminated century" had end up. First half of that age was rather peaceful, mostly rebuilding after 30-year war and Turks. Then at the end, instead of Austria, Britain and USA, all countries were in full scale civil war.

[Edric O]

LOL, Caid, you're more conservative than the most conservative conservatives I've ever met... Are you suggesting that we should go back to the Middle Ages or something? ::)

Now let's take a look at monarchies. They are of two kinds: constitutional and absolutist.

Absolutist monarchies are practically identical to modern dictatorships, and absolute monarchs like King Louis XIV or Tsar Nicholas II were just slightly different versions of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I don't think I need to explain just how inherently evil that is.

Constitutional monarchies are a way for nostalgics to throw government money down the drain. The monarchy becomes a very expensive source of entertainment and gossip, with no practical use. These monarchies are usually kept up by nostalgics to remind them of old "glory days" when the country was powerful and its people were miserable.

In brief, monarchies are useless at best and outright evil at worst. They are a relic of a time when the king was throught to have a "divine right" and to be inherently superior to his subjects (the phrase "blue blood" comes to mind). Many people have dreamed about ideal monarchies, lead by "enlightened despots" or "philosopher-kings". But no such thing can exist in the real world. Most kings were nothing more than cruel and brutal murderers who lived off the backs of their people, or degenerate fools who lived all their lives in their palaces and never got to see the harsh realities of life.

Freedom is a precious thing, and many of our forefathers gave their lives for it. Never give it up.

[Egeides]

Caid, do you mean that you see the Illuminated Century with the "Lumieres" as a bad century with bad leaders? What do you think about Voltaire, Diderot and all them?

[Caid Ivik]

Not bad, I would say rather twisted. In 13th century, we Europeans finally started to think. There was much to criticise, altough freedom of speech wasn't as today. Critics were hardest in 16th century, when Church felt finally needed blow to head by Luther. From then, situation was rather declining.

With lowering power of Church as UN-like authority, kings and emperors of the Europe became more and more authoritative. Instead of Poland and maybe England, all euro countries of 17th century were absolutistic monarchies. Church was considered as enemy of state for its former power, so no surprise they were permanently under attack of philosophers, supported by states.

Well, now comes 18th century. Philosophers now attack everything. Thinking of that time was: if Church has no authority, then God is only of a deistical core, maybe less; and if there is no real God, there are no divine rights of monarchies! You see, effect of acoustic torpedo, hitting louder sub. Monarchies become even more authoritative to stop these thoughts, so in secrecy of new elitist organisations (rotarians, freemasons) thinkers attack everything "old" or "reactional", no matter if it's moral code or feudalism. They create a gnostic utopies, based on self-salvation already on Earth. These utopies demagogically rallied many people, so revolutions could start, altough on its and was to be only a theory.

Only succesful revolution of this "illuminated" (enlightened by cannon shots, to be sure) era was in USA: but that was an empty land, compared to i.e.France. You know, Americans had enough place to shape their culture, in Europe we tried to change shape of ourselves. Voltaire and Diderot were more theoretics, problem was more in likes of Rousseau. If there wouldn't be Kant, I am not sure what would we consider as morality today, altough even this was a barely success.

In short, I just don't see a reason of calling 18th century as "illuminated". We can't define an era with one word. For example we call period between antic and medieval era as a "dark age", but see the 20th century with its world wars, totalitarian dictatorships, mere lowering of humanity to pure resource: isn't that a dark age?

[Egeides]

I strongly agree with periods being called names, but I was just refering to it as an example.

So basically, you believe that men should have freedom but all this within a monarchy or similar system? If this system is centralized and doesn't let people their word into it, don't you believe it will leave to some conflicts and therefore to this system to repress freedom exactly as all monarchic (or similar) system did until now? Did I understood well when I concluded that you wanted at the same time freedom and monarchy?

[Caid Ivik]

You've pointed another problem: centralisation. A state can't be succesfully controlled from only central government. You know, a confederative system. Regional governments should have own laws, police and administrative to fit the enviroment. Let's take an example from past again: in Austria, country was centralized, regions were controlled by austrian bureaucrats, installed and commanded by Wien. No matter these bureaucrats couldn't even speak language of their domain. Natives also tend to seek for some centralistic conspiracy, explotion of their land by "foreigners".

Monarchy isn't best word for this. People usually choose those, who best know how to rule, that's what is even democracy about. We always create some kind of aristocracy, politicians have their "sons", young supporters raised to continue the way. Sometimes is continuality of political experience even inside a true bloodline (Bush...). But there are many parties with different philosophies. Don't forget that parties were created by grouping of feudal lords in parliament.

In short, we can have aristocracy with freedom, but only if it maintains plurality and decentralisation. Centralised empire can be only repressive.

[Egeides]

Ok, nice: now I understand :)

But in such a case, wouldn't it only be the aristocracy that would be represented, thus taking decisions that wouldn't be considering the good and advancement of the society as a whole but only the aristocracy's interests?

Also, how do you believe parties can be diversified? If I look at the present situation, only a few with lots of corporate/bureaucratic power (basically, the statu quo powers) really succede getting into politics seriously! If the aristocrat are the ones getting an advantageous situation in a country, wont they tend to support the statu quo even when the best would be not to?

[Dante]

Edric:

I don't know about the others but I wouldn't mind a feudal system from the middle ages to be reinstated.

A dictatorship need not be inherantly evil. It is the ruler that makes the state and if the ruler is evil then so too is the state. Tsar Nicolas wasn't evil, just out of touch and slightly incompetant. Unfortunately, in his job 'slightly' was far too much.

I dislike constitutional monarchies. They remind people of the 'glory days' without ever bringing them back. As you said, they are also expensive.

Kings are not chosen by divine right, they never were. There is no such thing. Yet human nature will forever bow only to those with more power. Democracy in any form will never work because human nature simply isn't compatble (as we have discussed). Eventually it will become autocratic in some form or another, and if that is a monarchy, very well.

Egeides:

What's wrong with the aristocracy having power? I rather like the idea of a shadowy, powerful group of bourgeosie sitting behind the throne, holding all the real power. If there's a puppet democracy at work, so much the better. They have someone to blame if things go pear-shaped.

[Caid Ivik]

Ok, nice: now I understand :)

But in such a case, wouldn't it only be the aristocracy that would be represented, thus taking decisions that wouldn't be considering the good and advancement of the society as a whole but only the aristocracy's interests?

Also, how do you believe parties can be diversified? If I look at the present situation, only a few with lots of corporate/bureaucratic power (basically, the statu quo powers) really succede getting into politics seriously! If the aristocrat are the ones getting an advantageous situation in a country, wont they tend to support the statu quo even when the best would be not to?

Aristocracy is even today presented. Just we don't use some true names. You can't have such marxistic view, that each member of a "class" has same interests. You can find various conservatives, clericalists, socialists, greens, even anarchists between professional politicians. For me, aristocracy is better than oligarchy of merchants. Strong corporations should be "fed" by freedom, let they counter the government as least as possible. Like a bee hive, you must put a little bit of sugar and a free flower field to get honey.

[Edric O]

Well, now comes 18th century. Philosophers now attack everything. Thinking of that time was: if Church has no authority, then God is only of a deistical core, maybe less; and if there is no real God, there are no divine rights of monarchies!

Oh, so you think it was bad that people no longer worshipped their kings as some sort of demigods? ::)

Monarchies become even more authoritative to stop these thoughts, so in secrecy of new elitist organisations (rotarians, freemasons) thinkers attack everything "old" or "reactional", no matter if it's moral code or feudalism. They create a gnostic utopies, based on self-salvation already on Earth. These utopies demagogically rallied many people, so revolutions could start, altough on its and was to be only a theory.

Err, Caid, those "evil" revolutions were the ones that brought democracy to the modern world. You talk as if you wanted to go back to feudalism!

Weren't you a capitalist...?

Only succesful revolution of this "illuminated" (enlightened by cannon shots, to be sure) era was in USA: but that was an empty land, compared to i.e.France. You know, Americans had enough place to shape their culture, in Europe we tried to change shape of ourselves. Voltaire and Diderot were more theoretics, problem was more in likes of Rousseau.

Actually, ALL their revolutions were successful, because they DID change the world. They changed the very foundations of society. They introduced the concepts of human rights and democracy. They crushed the divine right of kings and obliterated the legitimacy of absolute monarchies.

The French Revolution and those that followed it may have lost their first battle, but they eventually won the war. All of the governments we have today are based on the ideals and the principles of the French Revolution.

There was one attempt to turn back the wheel of time and erase the legacy of the 18th and 19th century revolutions: Fascism. When Adolf Hitler took power, he boasted that "1789 [i.e. the French Revolution] is undone". But 12 years later, freedom defeated tyranny once again.

By the way, I see you mention Jean-Jacques Rousseau. You call him "dangerous", which is probably what the king of France also called him. Again, you're confusing me: Are you a feudalist or a capitalist? Rousseau's principles (known as The Social Contract) form the very core of all modern democratic systems. I would expect a nazi to consider Rousseau "dangerous", but not someone who calls himself a supporter of democracy, like you do.

[Edric O]

In short, we can have aristocracy with freedom, but only if it maintains plurality and decentralisation. Centralised empire can be only repressive.

Yes, we can have aristocracy with freedom, just as long as the aristocracy is powerless.

But then what's the point of wasting money and resources on such parasites? (aristocrats are parasites by nature: they don't produce anything, but they consume ridiculously large amounts of money)

Aristocracy is even today presented. Just we don't use some true names.

Thank you, Caid! You have provided me with a very good argument against capitalism!

Dust Scout:

He he, I already know you ideas all too well. ;) And although we completely disagree, I appreciate the fact that you are open and honest about what you think (unlike someone else I could name...). You wouldn't mind a feudal system to be reinstated because you don't believe that the well-being (or even the lives) of human beings have any importance. Therefore, we disagree on the most fundamental level.

Any ruler with absolute power will eventually become evil, no matter how good and kind he is at the start. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And I don't understand how you can say that democracy "doesn't work" when it obviously DOES work (there's plenty of history to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt). Perhaps you mean that democracy doesn't last forever. That's true, of course, because NOTHING lasts forever.

[Dante]

True enough. But I believe that 'democracy' in it's modern form will revert sooner or later. Perhaps within this century. And the most likely outcome of that is complete destruction of the world... :'(

I do not believe that a democracy can ever function on a human level, unless the ability to gain, or even contemplate of gaining more power over others is completely removed. This is impossible, as to take that away is to take away the ability to be truly human (i.e, to be power hungry and self-centred).

Thus an autocracy is the only option, and will perhaps eventually lead to destruction. But like you said, nothing lasts forever.

[Edric O]

Democracy works at the human level by achieving a balance between two human urges: On the one hand, humans want to have power over others. On the other hand, they don't want others to have power over them.

[Dante]

This is no place for thinly veiled insults...

Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Poland autocratic until it was annexed by Austria, Prussia and Russia? Before being re-created after World War One as a demorcatic state? VERY artificial; since it was the Treay of Versailles and everything.

[Edric O]

I can't expect communist to talk constructively about monarchy but why he must make TWO long replies?

Yes, and you also can't expect me to write constructively about Nazi Germany. Is that a BAD thing?

And the reason why I wrote two replies was because I noticed those other posts only after I posted my first reply, and I didn't want to edit it because someone might have replied to it before I had finished.

Morale status of revolutions is not the point, fact is that democracy was much before 18th century, and could many times evolve into state without blood (i.e.Poland). Not saying that a true democracy was ideal only of a very few revolts, and only that american reached the goal. See that most of the modern world became truly democratic just 14 years ago.

Actually, most of the modern world isn't truly democratic even now, but that's not the point.

The point is that you seem to expect hundreds of thousands of poor, miserable, starving people to be quiet and obedient to their king, no matter what an incompetent, despotic, evil murderer he is.

When your children are dying, you're not exactly in a mood to wait another 100 years for a more democratic state to develop...

And, for your information, there was no democracy in Europe before the 18th century. Unless you count Ancient Athens, which had lost its democracy over 2000 years earlier. Two thousand years!

You think that kings had divine rights and poor people just crushed them? Weird. Fact is that rule was so secularized (or clericalized, what's other extreme, when Church becomes a puppet of ruler), that no one believed it already in 16th century! And about human rights and democracy: see Bible, here you have them too...

You think a small group of enlightened philosophers was representative for the whole of society? The fact is that many people still believed the king to be some sort of higher being, inherently "superior" to "commonners" like them. It took an earth-shaking revolution to finally put an end to that belief.

And the fact that you have a very basic and ancient version of "human rights" in the Bible (as well as in the Code of Hammurabi, for that matter) means nothing as long as those rights are not upheld by the state. Also, unless your ideal state is a fundamentalist theocracy, we need secular laws and secular human rights, which need to be far more exact and specific than the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

If it would be so, we would live in a communist hell. No, thanks, platonic state isn't my ideal.

Oh, "communist hell", such an unbiased and completely non-propagandistic phrase... ::)

Perhaps you need to study a bit more history, so you can see the immense influence of the ideas of the French Revolution over all political thought in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And I would very much like to find out what IS your ideal, Caid, since it seems to be a different one in every new topic.

In 1789 won ANARCHY, not a freedom. People liberated political opponents of king, but also many true criminals. You are writing a pure propaganda, overtaking facts, that first four revolutions brought to power even worse tyrans! Only the fifth was succesful - and that one was supported by authocratic prussian empire!

I'll take anarchy over tyranny any day.

And yes, the French had 5 revolutions within a hundred years, and for that I admire them. They wanted freedom, and they did not give up until they got it. When their first revolution failed, they tried again. And again. And again! Until they were finally free.

No one ever won his freedom by sitting around and waiting for it to fall on his head, Caid.

Rousseau restored platonic antiutopy. He (again) degraded human to a pure "part of state", I would say there is no difference between Hobbes' totality and Rousseau's hive. He put even all his children to orphan domes to show his believes. We are not talking about democracy: that right was in half of Europe when he came. He made the philosophy, on which was nazism later based: SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

Are we talking about the same person here? Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment. His ideas were centered around the principle of the Social Contract: That the state exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The people, not some divine entity, are the ones who invest the state with power. A sort of contract exists between the people and the state, in which the people decide their obligations towards the state, and the obligations of the state towards them. If the state breaks the agreement, the people have the right to remove its power and put a new type of state in its place. (I have written the last sentence in italics because it is Rousseau's most important innovation, which was later used in the US Constitution)

A "social contract" is a document we call a CONSTITUTION. Would you rather not have a Constitution, Caid?

We should spare our propaganda for another red-blue clash, don't you think, EdricO? This looked like a serious debate...until now...

LOL, so true! This topic looked so promising before you made that post...

You know, there's one thing that I just can't understand about you: Why are you so quick to jump in the defense of absolute monarchs, but so full of venom towards Stalin and his followers? After all, there is essentially no difference between absolute monarchy and stalinism. So how come you love one and hate the other?

And why do you hate Saddam Hussein, for that matter? If you say that the people of France should have just endured all the brutality of the regime and waited for better times instead of revolting, then why doesn't that apply to ALL despots and dictators?

[Edric O]

After death of last Jagello in battle for Mohucs (1526), Poland's official name was Rzecz Pospolita Polska - Polish Republic. It was a constitutional monarchy with king elected by Sejm - senate composed of aristocrats of all ranks and also bourgeoise. Of course, for example Ukraine was driven by hard hand, but polish homeland not. Poland was only a limited, aristocratic democracy, but such state remained in most of the Europe until WW1.

Yes, but did the people (i.e. the average peasant) have any power or any say in these elections? No, not one bit. They were restricted to high ranking nobles. So how can you ever call it a "democracy"?

[Edric O]

Oh, so after I take the time to write a very long and well thought-out reply that systematically refutes every single one of your arguments, the best thing that you can come up with is "you've ruined my pretty topic so I'm not talking to you any more"? Please, Caid, grow up...

I don't know which Rousseau you're talking about, but it's definately not the same Rousseau that you find in the history books... I have given you a short summary of the principle of the Social Contract, and shown how it stands at the base of all modern constitutional systems. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the people who made it possible for you (and all of us) to live in a constitutional democracy.

So I must ask you again, Caid: Are you a capitalist or a feudalist?

Edit: Hmmm, it looks like the post I was replying to has been deleted by someone...