The issue is not whether the ruler will be benevolent vs brutal. The issue is whether or not a constitutional document meant to govern the way a single monarch rules is better than what we have now, which is a constitution that governs the way in which many politicians rule. It seems to me that applying a Constitution meant to limit the powers of a governing body makes more sense if that governing body consists of as few people as possible.
Okay. That is a fair enough point. My point is not so much a philosophical one as much as it is an absolute one. That is, a piece of paper can restrict or chain down no government if the people are dumbed down to such a point as being unable to even comprehend the Preamble (I'm minded to refer to "Animal Farm"). It is also an absolute truth, and I understand that you aren't even getting into this part of the equation (but still), that the power vested to one individual, being as concentrated as it would be, would in no time lead to executive decrees, a military dictatorship, and shortly thereafter the disappearance of political rivals. To remain in power a few (thousand, or million, one by one) would be made examples of. Now you might say that this has no bearing on your philosophical argument of whether or not one 'ruler' is better than 535 (or however many). I'd disagree.
Not simply that but if I were to argue against your point, I'd simply say that I want as many 'rulers' as possible. That is to say, I want 320,000,000 people ruling their own lives. We can all be governed by a piece of paper, if people so wish to be, and so long as said rulers respect the sovereignty of other rulers, as in, they respect each other's rights, I don't much care what governs them, be it God, or a Constitution, or even simply not having a bastardized moral compass. See, you are looking at this from the angle of, "Well, everyone would know who to blame (should there only be one ruler)." Have you not considered what a blessing it may be to have such a number of incompetent, power grubbing, whores in D.C. (if we are to have any, that is) each going after their own interests? I wish there was another 130 of them, separate party from the big two. They might not ever pass anything if that were case. At the least, one could see that they well could pass a lot less harmful measures than if it is simply one person saying, "
Interstate Commerce; Give me your shit" (and the people scratching their heads and turning to their neighbors and saying, "Interstate commerce!? What's that?")
I guess the idea isn't really based on whether or not we have a friendly guy in place. We're just assuming that should a governing body adhere to a constitution, it seems preferable to have as few people in government as possible.
Should the governing body adhere to a Constitution, it would not matter if it was one or a million. Considering that they don't, won't and a piece of paper cannot, tie down governmental overreach, I'm going to reject the notion that one 'ruler' is better than many (squabbling over this or that). Besides, if they followed the Constitution, as your speculation supposes they will, it would not matter.
In a monarchy, if the ruler does not adhere to the constitution, there is no question who to blame and who needs to be replaced in order to fix the problem (if the problem of people in power not adhering to a constitution can ever be fixed).
Well you're starting to get at the root of the problem. I do not think it can be. Especially when the people supposedly living under the authority of said document cannot read nor comprehend said document.
You are ignoring the propaganda tactics that have been studied and mastered especially over the last hundred years. There will always be a scapegoat as to why things are the way that they are. A powerful speaker, nationalistic rhetoric, the people would eat that shit up. Aside from the fact that said ruler would have some sort of following or base regardless. Those who benefit from his rule would support him. It would take revolution after revolution to try to get back on the path to freedom if the momentum wasn't retarded permanently.
What I'm trying to understand is this: If you have a founding document that outlines specific powers granted to a government, what is the point of having that government comprised of so many rulers? Why not limit the amount of rulers? We see how the president blames Congress for every problem in the country, or vice versa. We see how both political parties blame each other for everything. It is a circus. Not to mention most politicians are slime balls. Just more people in government with more ideas on how to violate the constitution. It is hard to hold any single person accountable since so many share the blame.
One, they aren't supposed to be rulers. And if said Constitution, written, signed, and ratified, by no living person, were to offer up my sovereignty as an individual, before I am even born, simply because of the parameters of where I am to be born, to any ruler, be it 1 or 535, said document could be pissed upon for what I care.
The people have been dumbed down by a complicit media (which if you had a monarch, much the same would occur... that is, state sponsored 'news') and entertained. They have been taught all they know by a system designed to keep those in power in power. It isn't because there are so many of them that they cannot be held accountable. It's that the people are unaware of their crimes. It's that the people are still comfortable.
The less politicians the better in my opinion. Seems as though a Constitutional Monarchy circumvents many of these issues. Now, is a Constitutional monarchy the society I want to live in? Hell no. To me there is no viable alternative to freedom. But for the sake of a philosophical discussion - and hypothetically speaking - I do think that among constitutions, monarchy is the best.
The less politicians the better, indeed. Except for when there are so many of them that nothing can be accomplished, or when people, generically referred to as 'politicians' (or 'rulers'), govern themselves.
I mean I get what you're saying and in a strict philosophical discussion a lot of it makes sense. The issue with the world is that it is not defined mathematically or scientifically. What I mean is, there are human actions, group think phenomena, emotion based reactions etc. I could not perfectly define what would occur but I sure as hell could paint a picture. And it isn't one of one ruler taking it upon himself to follow the Constitution. For starters, hardly a pair would agree on precisely what the Constitution means. Does this monarch feel the Constitution is a living document or does he feel it is a rigid document? Do the people care?
Anyways, just a few of my thoughts on the matter.
Excellent. I would've written something very similar if I had the time. ~hugs~
