Is a constitutional monarchy better than a constitutional republic?

[acptulsa]

I would argue you simply experienced the illusion of freedom. I'm fairly certain you're not old enough to have good memories of a time before an income tax or property tax or suffer the effects of inflation (a hidden tax)-just to name a few. If you have to pay a tax (or "fee" if you want to look at it that way) just to exist as a human interacting with others, you aren't free. You're a renter at best and a serf at worst.

Or an eater. Not that buying food is exactly the same as paying tax, but to exist 'as a human interacting with others' you are either a subsistence farmer or you are paying to eat.

My big beef with Obamacare is you never had to pay just to walk around and breathe the air in this nation before. You really didn't. All the other taxes could, at least in theory, be avoided.

I doubt you're a liar at all. You strike me as well-intentioned and endeavor toward honesty in debate a generally. You just work from your own understanding of words like "freedom" and tell the truth from your perspective. (the Newspeak sense of the words, as I call them.)

Newspeak has nothing to do with the fact that I recall the taste of Liberty. You can call it 'relative liberty' if you have to. Either way, it was delicious.

'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers

Some people around here seem content to go to bed with the perfect theory of liberty. I want the taste of the imperfect, messy real thing back.

 

[Tyreez]

Does it really matter? To most of the real people down on the streets, it doesn't matter who's in charge, King, President, Republican, Democrat. I'll support freedom no matter the system.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Does it really matter? To most of the real people down on the streets, it doesn't matter who's in charge, King, President, Republican, Democrat. I'll support freedom no matter the system.

It doesn't, really-on paper. The heart of the matter and ultimate goal (to me) is finding a way to the greatest liberty for all as possible. It's mostly the practical things that we debate and disagree about.

 

[BV2]

Sure it matters. Especially in cases of hereditary succession. Even a princeling brought up with an education to rule can turn despotic, even though such a turn is harmful to his aims. In a dynasty the despotism is arbitrary, where as in a democracy it is based upon consent. At least when it is based upon consent people can find culpability in any mirror.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure it matters. Especially in cases of hereditary succession. Even a princeling brought up with an education to rule can turn despotic, even though such a turn is harmful to his aims. In a dynasty the despotism is arbitrary, where as in a democracy it is based upon consent. At least when it is based upon consent people can find culpability in any mirror.

We've already been over this. The despotic princeling can be overthrown American/Russian/French Revolution style and thus has incentive to act in "The People's" rational self-interest-the democracy/republic apparatus cannot.

 

[mosquitobite]

I think we should go back to the judges system.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think we should go back to the judges system.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure it matters. Especially in cases of hereditary succession. Even a princeling brought up with an education to rule can turn despotic, even though such a turn is harmful to his aims. In a dynasty the despotism is arbitrary, where as in a democracy it is based upon consent. At least when it is based upon consent people can find culpability in any mirror.

Nonsense. Even if democracy was legitimate, we can only say 50%+1 of the voters are represented-and this assumes 100% turnout. Even then, many of those vulnerable to the consequences of the elections(minors, felons who have not had their rights restored, immigrants, etc) have no choice. It is tyranny of the majority.

 

[acptulsa]

We've already been over this. The despotic princeling can be overthrown American/Russian/French Revolution style and thus has incentive to act in "The People's" rational self-interest-the democracy/republic apparatus cannot.

It can't? Pray, why not? One despot can't hire and arm as many goons as 536 goons can? Really?

Nonsense. Even if democracy was legitimate, we can only say 50%+1 of the voters are represented-and this assumes 100% turnout. Even then, many of those vulnerable to the consequences of the elections(minors, felons who have not had their rights restored, immigrants, etc) have no choice. It is tyranny of the majority.

I don't like pure democracy either. Got something to say about republics now?

 

[BV2]

Nonsense. Even if democracy was legitimate, we can only say 50%+1 of the voters are represented-and this assumes 100% turnout. Even then, many of those vulnerable to the consequences of the elections(minors, felons who have not had their rights restored, immigrants, etc) have no choice. It is tyranny of the majority.

I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm just saying that a monarchy would be subject to tyranny all the same. So why go backwards?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It can't? Pray, why not? One despot can't hire and arm as many goons as 536 goons can? Really?

Sure he could. But once he's dead he can't do anything else. Ask czar Nicholas and Louis XVI.

I don't like pure democracy either. Got something to say about republics now?

Nothing much better about it. It's just tyranny of the majority of representatives (who represent a small portion of the population, like the democratically elected sort of tyrant). The extra benefit is more opportunities for cronyism. Also, a more complicated system of political machinery to confuse and tyranize the unwashed masses with.

See also the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Roman Republic, and the People's Republic of China for more real life examples of the failure of Republican theory.

 

[acptulsa]

Sure he could. But once he's dead he can't do anything else. Ask czar Nicholas and Louis XVI.

Nothing much better about it. It's just tyranny of the majority of representatives (who represent a small portion of the population, like the democratically elected sort of tyrant). The extra benefit is more opportunities for cronyism. Also, a more complicated system of political machinery to confuse and tyranize the unwashed masses with.

See also the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Roman Republic, and the People's Republic of China for more real life examples of the failure of Republican theory.

Well, you know, there are two things about a committe that everyone on earth seems to know but you. One is, minorities (like Heartlanders, Southerners, and Left Coasters) can at least get some obstructionism if nothing else if they have representatives on a committee. Which is more than any minority could ever claim about an individual tyrant, unless he happened to be their individual tyrant. The other thing is committees sometimes deadlock, and in the case of government, that is seldom a bad thing.

As for you holding out as examples communist tyrannies which put 'republic' in their names for no other reason than to try to buy some undeserved legitimacy, you're too late. The failboat has already pulled up the gangplank. Go insult someone else's intelligence.

 

[robert68]

..

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The idea of a running the state as a corporation, where the monarch is appointed by shareholders has been making the rounds in radical online circles as of late. The notion of electing a king makes no sense to me, the whole point of monarchism as preferable to democracy is that it doesn't devolve into lowest common denominator pandering and identity politics.

Personally, I prefer getting rid of the absurd idea that every plebe should be able to have a say in the political process. Republicanism can work, but the voters have to be well informed, intelligent and have a stake in the preservation of liberty. Liberal democracy inevitably degenerates into endlessly expanding bureaucracy and factionalism within constituents. Modernity chastises the Founders for only allowing "land owning white males" to vote, but giving the household invested in the society the say over politics makes far more sense than extending that right to the plebeian. Ultimately, I think privatization of the law would maintain liberty most effectively, but democracy is simply a nightmare and we need to get away from it one way or another. I'd take a monarch with limited authority any day over an elected authoritarian who has "legitimacy" because he conned the ignorant masses into casting a ballot.

Personal and economic freedom are necessary, if you have those political freedom is largely meaningless.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The idea of a running the state as a corporation, where the monarch is appointed by shareholders has been making the rounds in radical online circles as of late. The idea of electing a king makes no sense to me, the whole idea of monarchism as preferable to democracy is that it doesn't devolve into lowest common denominator pandering and identity politics.

Personally, I prefer getting rid of the absurd idea that every plebe should be able to have a say in the political process. Republicanism can work, but the voters have to be well informed, intelligent and have a stake in the preservation of liberty. Liberal democracy inevitably degenerates into endlessly expanding bureaucracy and factionalism within constituents. Modernity chastises the Founders for only allowing "land owning white males" to vote, but giving the household invested in the society the say over politics makes far more sense than extending that right to the plebeian. Ultimately, I think privatization of the law would maintain liberty most effectively, but democracy is simply a nightmare and we need to get away from it one way or another. I'd take a monarch with limited authority any day over an elected authoritarian who has "legitimacy" because he conned the ignorant masses into casting a ballot.

Personal and economic freedom are necessary, if you have those political freedom is largely meaningless.

Well, no one in this thread is proposing a corporate model. Other than that, it seems we agree quite solidly. Thanks for participating in the thread. ~hugs~