Political philosophy

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Rad as Queen Elizabeth is, I don't want her appointing our mostly powerless head of state.

I read this as red as Queen Elizabeth is...

O.o

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That is a very persuasive argument for a constitutional monarchy Gaffer.

However, a monarch could be bought. Just because they will have the position regardless of their political leanings doesn't mean they couldn't be corrupted. Also, installing someone for life based on their ancestory alone doesn't seem to lend itself to honest governance.

If you consider it based solely on the matter of their anscestry, you're right. However, it seems to me that if one is raised as the heir to the throne from birth, it will have a tendency (though this is again not always the case) to sober them, and instill in them a sense of responsibility. Also, in all likelihood they will be trained in politics from an early age, rather than, say, movie actors who are elected to government posts. If someone grows up knowing that "one day I will be the king of this nation", I believe it will usually (though not always) make him feel bound to his people.

I'm sure the Constitution would limit, or provide a clause of removal, for any incompetant leaders. However, is it fair to make someone a leader just because of who their parents are? Would you like to be King or Queen of England? I mean, really?

No I wouldn't, and perhaps it isn't. But life isn't fair.

That's why I like meritocracies. I'm such an idealist.

While I do like monarchy, I think the best government is egocracy, which Latinists will recognize as "Rule by me."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sun-star

That’s a very good point. I hate to be the first one to quote Winston Churchill in this discussion, because it’s a real cliché, but anyway: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried”. We should recognise that democracy is open to corruption like any other form of government, particularly because it favours majority groups and interests over those of minorities. Money will always have the most power: can any government or president be elected without substantial financial backing? Furthermore, no Western country today is a perfect democracy, because we don’t vote on laws ourselves – we elect other people to do it for us, in the hope that they will vote in a way we like. Like any system created by fallible human beings, democracy is fallible. How can you trust the majority to always judge wisely? Voters are often ignorant, apathetic, prejudiced or swayed by the heart rather than the head. I know I am I don’t think we should assume that checks and balances will eliminate all these factors, and as Eärniel pointed out, monarchies can have checks and balances too.

In its ideal form, monarchy has a lot more going for it. Imagine there was one person who could never be corrupted, who always judged correctly, who was never misled by personal prejudice or weakness. A world governed by that person would surely be better than one ruled by the interests of a majority. That kind of monarchy can’t be achieved on earth, because no such person exists, but it’s a powerful myth – it’s the attraction of a legendary figure like King Arthur, and the reason such figures can be seen as images of Christ the King.

It's also the guardians of Plato's Republic.

Very good post, sun-star. But...Christ the King? Aren't we mixing religion and politics?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Seriously. I don't like the idea of any foreign power having a hand in our government.

Then you're in favour of the Act of Settlement? Keep the influence of the pope and his pointy crown in Rome?

[Lotesse]

Listen, strange women lyin' n ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to weild supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round saying I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[Falagar]

Can you see the violence inherent in the system?! Can you see the violence inherent in the system?!

[Rían]

(great Python quotes!!! "watery tart" )

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What exactly is the difference between a ceremonial and constitutional monarchy, at least the form of constitutional monarchy that is prevalent? Of course, one could have one where the monarchy has some degree of power, but is still bound by a constitution.

I don't think there's actually a specific detailed definition for either. In a constitutional monarchy, the duties, rights and powers of the King are controlled by the constitution. The King is bound by the constitution but still can have certain power in decisions and whatnot. In a ceremonial monarchy the King has little to no power and is really only a figurehead. (Hm, basically you seem to have answered your own question. )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So, in practice modern constitutional monarchies are more or less ceremonial monarchies?

[Earniel]

Not necessarily. I take it every monarchy is somewhat different due to historical facts, where the monarch kept different rights or powers. But frankly I have to admit this is beyond my point of knowledge.

[Count Comfect]

Hmmm... I think Gwaimir is setting up a nice straw man here - a democracy, proper, means every citizen votes on everything (see - ancient Athens), not the American form of government, which is technically a republic.

Democracy sucks, in my opinion. With over a few hundred people it gets completely unwieldy and absurd.

Representative democracy (aka a republic) on the other hand, is quite good. While the majority may be "self-serving" that means that the majority is getting served. This is soooo far from the case in a monarchy* as to be laughable.

* I mean here an absolute or at least unitary monarchy. That is, not a consitutional one like most of Europe has now where the real heavy lifting and governing and such is done by an elected body. Those are basically republics in terms of their legislative branches, even if they are monarchies in terms of their executives.

The problem with a supreme monarchy that incorporates both legislative and executive into one is that there is too much need for a single person, and one that is not replaceable* who has to be good. Whereas in a system with an elected legislature, there is a higher chance of response to the needs of the people, and a chance to get out of office those who are not good.

*Kings aren't replaceable. You don't get to vote them out of office. You can rebel, but then it is the whole system you are attacking.

Also, it should be noted that even if the single person in charge of executive & legislative is elected, there is still way too much potential for abuse of that combined power. Much better to have checks & balances.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Hmmm... I think Gwaimir is setting up a nice straw man here - a democracy, proper, means every citizen votes on everything (see - ancient Athens), not the American form of government, which is technically a republic.

And, Count, if you will note, I made that distinction in my first reply to Lief. I'm very glad to hear you also making the distinction. People were talking about democracy as a 'good thing' which came out of the Plague, and I get quite annoyed when people confound democracy and republic.

Representative democracy (aka a republic) on the other hand, is quite good. While the majority may be "self-serving" that means that the majority is getting served. This is soooo far from the case in a monarchy* as to be laughable.

Ah, but here you treat the majority as some sort of whole, when it is in fact many individuals. Merely because the majority are self-serving does not mean that the majority are served. Majority member X may want A, Majority member Y may want B contrary to A, etc., so that it leads to strife.

The problem with a supreme monarchy that incorporates both legislative and executive into one is that there is too much need for a single person, and one that is not replaceable* who has to be good. Whereas in a system with an elected legislature, there is a higher chance of response to the needs of the people, and a chance to get out of office those who are not good.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by "need for a single person"; could you elaborate?

I disagree that an elected legistlature gives a higher chance of response to the needs of the people. It gives a higher chance of response to the WANTS of the people, which are rarely the same as their needs.

*Kings aren't replaceable. You don't get to vote them out of office. You can rebel, but then it is the whole system you are attacking.

And I am saying some sort of replaceable king would be best. Plus, you forgot tyrannicide. And last, it is unfair to say that if you rebel against a king that you are necessarily attacking the whole idea of monarchy; another monarch could easily be set up in his place.

Also, it should be noted that even if the single person in charge of executive & legislative is elected, there is still way too much potential for abuse of that combined power. Much better to have checks & balances.

Of course, one must have checks and balances. Barring Socrates' "philosopher king" ( ), checks and balances are the only way to not descend into utter ruin.

[Count Comfect]

A monarchy places far too much trust in the person of the monarch. In a deliberative body, there is an institutional control requiring some discussion and some acknowledgement of differing views (perhaps not as much as we would like, but more than if a king simply says "I want to do that"). There is no such institutional check on a monarchy.

If the majority is self-serving, in a republic, on each issue the majority on that issue will be served. If person X and person Y want opposite things, they do not make the same majority.

The greatest problem with a monarchy is that it conflates the legislative and executive branches. These should be separated because having one person or even one body both carry out the law and decide what the law is lends itself marvellously well to abuse.

Having a single person legislature, even if not conflated with the executive, is still more problematic than a deliberative body because the issue of arbitrary power is much more of a problem in a single person because they don't need anyone else to go along with them to enact something.

Besides, I frankly trust the majority to vote for representatives who, well, represent them on the issues - and thus do the best for them - better than I trust some single person to do the best for them out of the goodness of his or her heart.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A monarchy places far too much trust in the person of the monarch. In a deliberative body, there is an institutional control requiring some discussion and some acknowledgement of differing views (perhaps not as much as we would like, but more than if a king simply says "I want to do that"). There is no such institutional check on a monarchy.

I will grant that there is, to a certain extent, more acknowledgement of other views, at least in some respects in a deliberative body. However, this is I think rather limited, and often only truly into account two mainstream views (see American Democrats and Republicans), and so is of limited value.

If the majority is self-serving, in a republic, on each issue the majority on that issue will be served. If person X and person Y want opposite things, they do not make the same majority.

You're speaking of very different majorities. Person X and Person Y wanting opposite things does not in any way hinder them from being in the same self-serving majority.

Anyway, I don't think, again, that the majority being served is a good thing. See below, and previous post for that matter.

The greatest problem with a monarchy is that it conflates the legislative and executive branches. These should be separated because having one person or even one body both carry out the law and decide what the law is lends itself marvellously well to abuse.

Again, there must be checks in place to threaten a monarch with, in order to avoid such abuse.

Having a single person legislature, even if not conflated with the executive, is still more problematic than a deliberative body because the issue of arbitrary power is much more of a problem in a single person because they don't need anyone else to go along with them to enact something.

The same thing is true of a deliberative body with a majority of one party large enough to pass measures.

Besides, I frankly trust the majority to vote for representatives who, well, represent them on the issues - and thus do the best for them - better than I trust some single person to do the best for them out of the goodness of his or her heart.

Again, the representative will usually NOT do the best for them, but what they want. And considering the sorry state of education in America, that can be a bad thing.

[Count Comfect]

I say you're assuming the best about monarchy and the worst about a republic. You are assuming that the majority will not vote for what they need, while assuming that some single person serving as monarch will supply them with what they need without any trouble. The first assumption is far worse than history shows us; the second is far better.

Also, I think hearing even two views (say Dems and Republicans) is much better than only one.

And majorities are not fixed, unlike a single person. In a completely simple case (say five representatives, ABCDE) we might have majority ABC on one issue and ABD on another, and CDE on a third. So the statement that "The same thing [ie the probability of dictatorship] is true of a deliberative body with a majority of one party large enough to pass measures" is not as true because the majority need not be stable.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Where those two assumptions you say I make come from is one simple view that is: People are as a rule (though not one without exception) selfish, greedy, and foolish but can be trained to be more responsible and imbued with a sense that their duties are higher than them.

Based on this principle, I think it a bad idea to be ruled by people in general. However, they can be imbued with a sense of responsibility, and a feeling that their duties are higher than their desires, and even their wants. This will not happen with the majority of people; however, it seems to me likely that it Since it is more realistic to assume this happens with someone who is expected from birth to be the heir or a very real candidate for the throne.

I very much disagree that the assumptions are respectively better and worse than history shows. There are examples on both sides of bad, and I suppose good, but the numbers of republics/democracies vs. monarchies is so disproportioned that one cannot realistically play 'tit for tat' and expect it to be an accurate representation of the way of things.

Hearing two views can be better than one, indeed, though I'm not certain it always is. But I tend to think it is as a rule, so I'm in favour of kings having advisors, preferably on a relatively large scale, so there again you have more than one view being heard.

I could be mistaken, but I thought you were defending the American republic, in which case ABCDE is not a good representation. While of course it's not always true, as a general rule Republicans tend to vote along similar lines, and Democrats tend to vote along similar lines, so that if you have a very large majority of either, they need not give much regard to the views of the other.

[Count Comfect]

I'm defending the system of the American republic, not the way it currently runs. Just as I assume when you defend monarchy, you aren't willing to have Richard III stand in for you.

Again, when you say

People are as a rule (though not one without exception) selfish, greedy, and foolish but can be trained to be more responsible and imbued with a sense that their duties are higher than them.

I agree. But I disagree with the ideas that a) there is anywhere near a high likelihood at all that the latter sort of person will be your ruler b) this person should be trusted to rule everyone else, no matter how well-intentioned or c) that a mass of selfish, greedy, foolish people can't produce net results that are not selfish, greedy, and foolish.

As for history, there may be more monarchies than democracies or republics, but percentages would still hold besides which, I think even if you were to say that republics and democracies were relatively untried, monarchy can be shown to generally yield some pretty awful results...on average.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So then both of us are defending things which no longer practically speaking exist?

Monarchy does yield some pretty awful results, as you say, but not on average, I think, whereas the Athenian democracy was, as you mentioned earlier, a flop, and I don't consider modern republican or democratic government to be all that great either. I think that monarchy as a rule has a better track record than more popular forms of government.

a1) On the grounds that I stated that they would trained to consider "their duties to be higher than they" (or grammatically ought to have ), who else would fit, but a ruler? What other office can be said more or less universally to be more important than the holder of that office?

a2) It seems that no office would be better suited than kingship to being prepared to have their future holders formed in such a way, and that it is far more likely, especially as only with some sort of hereditary line can one know what office one will hold.

b) On the grounds of his being imbued the aforementioned senses, or on the presumption that he is not also trained in statecraft? If making him a virtuous man be attempted, it seems unlikely that he will be untrained in the niceties of ruling.

c) They can, but they can't be expected to. In fact, it seems that as regards the last, even if they produce results which are right, they cannot be considered to be anything but foolish, if those who choose them are foolish.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Democracy sucks, in my opinion. With over a few hundred people it gets completely unwieldy and absurd.

OK, move to Canada.
or
move to a monarchy and "off with your head".

[Count Comfect]

USA isn't a democracy either, Spock. Or did you personally vote on the last budget bill Congress passed?