Atheists Have Murdered 100,000,000 Humans and Counting

[William]

That's just how I quote other people. It helps to distinguish between my thoughts and theirs.



I didn't quote him for his "objectivity", but for the clarity with which he describes the institutional origins of monarchy.

Whether limited or absolute, the institution is based largely on force and intimidation and nobody has any moral obligation to render them obedience. In other words, a person may call themselves a "king", but only my consent can imbue them with the moral authority to act as such.

Furthermore, the founders were acutely aware of the British parliament's role in both domestic and foreign policy. However, the monarchy was a symbolic representation of that political authority that needed to be discredited in the minds of Americans before a revolution could take place.

In other words, many Americans were already resentful of Parliament's depredations, but they still felt a sentimental attachment to the personage of the king. Intellectually speaking, monarchy needed to be cut down to size and Thomas Paine accomplished that by stripping away the institution's trappings and ornamentation and describing it in the most plain and honest sense.

Thanks for that explanation, but it seems that you still don't understand the nature of a Constitutional Monarchy. It is not an Absolute Monarchy with limited powers. It is a totally different animal, where the Monarch is just a figurehead - the symbolical head of state, much like a President in a Parliamentary democracy, such as most Republics. The difference being the Monarch has no power whatsoever, other than denying absolute power to the executive arm of government. That the Monarch is not elected is both a convenience, and an advantage as he/she owes allegiance to no factions or lobby groups for his/her election. In that way the Monarch can be totally apolitical, and is in fact, required to be so in our system. But I now understand why the revolutionaries used the King as a symbol of what they were rebelling against - so thanks for that.

[Ethereal]

Thanks for that explanation, but it seems that you still don't understand the nature of a Constitutional Monarchy. It is not an Absolute Monarchy with limited powers. It is a totally different animal, where the Monarch is just a figurehead - the symbolical head of state, much like a President in a Parliamentary democracy, such as most Republics. The difference being the Monarch has no power whatsoever, other than denying absolute power to the executive arm of government. That the Monarch is not elected is both a convenience, and an advantage as he/she owes allegiance to no factions or lobby groups for his/her election. In that way the Monarch can be totally apolitical, and is in fact, required to be so in our system. But I now understand why the revolutionaries used the King as a symbol of what they were rebelling against - so thanks for that.

I do understand that. But if one studies the basis for state authority throughout history, we see the power of symbolism, iconography, ritual, etc., in establishing and maintaining that authority. A monarch, whether absolute or limited, is a powerful symbol of authority that embeds itself deeply into the collective conscious of a society, weakening their native spirit of independence and freedom and leaving them more susceptible to the kind of subservient mentality that the ruling classes depend upon. In other words, the very idea of a king is tyrannical, even if their powers are largely symbolic.

[William]

I do understand that. But if one studies the basis for state authority throughout history, we see the power of symbolism, iconography, ritual, etc., in establishing and maintaining that authority. A monarch, whether absolute or limited, is a powerful symbol of authority that embeds itself deeply into the collective conscious of a society, weakening their native spirit of independence and freedom and leaving them more susceptible to the kind of subservient mentality that the ruling classes depend upon. In other words, the very idea of a king is tyrannical, even if their powers are largely symbolic.

Sorry Ethereal, but the fact that you continue to see a Constitutional Monarchy as just a limited form of Absolute Monarchy means that you don't really understand what it is about. A Constitutional Monarchy is a totally different animal, and one that has nothing to do with power. It is just a political function, which uses a conveniently existing thing for a Head of State. Do you not believe that a Constitutional Monarch within our system has no real power? The Queen may not even express a political point of view on any subject.

Your system of Republic, with one man as Head of State, the leader of executive government with the ability to pass Executive Orders and use the Presidential veto, head of the military, as appointer of Supreme Court judges, and the power to send your nation to war, seems far more tyrannical to us who are used to those powers being much more widely spread.

And lol, at least our head of state has a lifetime training for the specific job. She knows which piece of silver to use at a state banquet, and she isn't a nearly illiterate oil baron or real estate developer with all sorts of conflicting interests, and favours owed to the people who put her there.

[Chris]

I'd argue, along with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who wrote Democracy: The God That Failed, that monarchy is superior to democracy. Let me explain. First, by democracy, I mean the large-scale, central planning, crony corrupt democracies of modernity, as opposed to any small-scale, decentralized, tranparent and responsible democracy like the Greeks had, like American Indians had. Second, why. The problem with modern democracies is those in power suffer relatively little consequences for the risks they take with other's life, wealth, property, health, etc. Yes, oh gee, they might not get elected next term and have to act as lobbyists. A monarch is making decisions about his kingfom, his land, property, family, pople and does so knowing any risk he takes he is responsible for and will suffer the consequences of, including rebellion of the people under him--in a way he serve the people and rules dependent on them. Yes, there can be despots, tyrants, but they are historically the exception to the rule.

(For @kilgram, before you go off on that, I remind you anarchy (rules without rulers) is still in my mond better than monarchy. IOW, anarchy > monarch > democracy (modern).)

[Ethereal]

Sorry Ethereal, but the fact that you continue to see a Constitutional Monarchy as just a limited form of Absolute Monarchy means that you don't really understand what it is about. A Constitutional Monarchy is a totally different animal, and one that has nothing to do with power. It is just a political function, which uses a conveniently existing thing for a Head of State. Do you not believe that a Constitutional Monarch within our system has no real power? The Queen may not even express a political point of view on any subject.

Your system of Republic, with one man as Head of State, the leader of executive government with the ability to pass Executive Orders and use the Presidential veto, head of the military, as appointer of Supreme Court judges, and the power to send your nation to war, seems far more tyrannical to us who are used to those powers being much more widely spread.

And lol, at least our head of state has a lifetime training for the specific job. She knows which piece of silver to use at a state banquet, and she isn't a nearly illiterate oil baron or real estate developer with all sorts of conflicting interests, and favours owed to the people who put her there.

I didn't say it was a limited form of absolute monarchy. I spoke to the psychological authority the institution of monarchy engenders. And that is true of all monarchies whether they're absolute or limited. If one studies the basis of state authority throughout history, one comes to realize the paramount importance of psychology in establishing, sustaining, and expanding that authority.

As for the US system of government, I agree that it is quite tyrannical. And much like monarchies, our nominal "republic" relies a great deal on symbolism, iconography, ritual, ceremony, etc., as a means of legitimating its authority over society.

[kilgram]

I'd argue, along with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who wrote Democracy: The God That Failed, that monarchy is superior to democracy. Let me explain. First, by democracy, I mean the large-scale, central planning, crony corrupt democracies of modernity, as opposed to any small-scale, decentralized, tranparent and responsible democracy like the Greeks had, like American Indians had. Second, why. The problem with modern democracies is those in power suffer relatively little consequences for the risks they take with other's life, wealth, property, health, etc. Yes, oh gee, they might not get elected next term and have to act as lobbyists. A monarch is making decisions about his kingfom, his land, property, family, pople and does so knowing any risk he takes he is responsible for and will suffer the consequences of, including rebellion of the people under him--in a way he serve the people and rules dependent on them. Yes, there can be despots, tyrants, but they are historically the exception to the rule.

(For @kilgram, before you go off on that, I remind you anarchy (rules without rulers) is still in my mond better than monarchy. IOW, anarchy > monarch > democracy (modern).)

No, a kingdom is an authoritarian system where a guy decides for all. It is like a dictatorship, they are the same. So, is much worse and less granting that today democracies.

For your preference of an authoritarian system I question your idea of anarchy.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[William]

No, a kingdom is an authoritarian system where a guy decides for all. It is like a dictatorship, they are the same. So, is much worse and less granting that today democracies.

For your preference of an authoritarian system I question your idea of anarchy.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

I'm sorry Kilgram, but there is a universe of difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy. The old type of Monarchy was the worst type of dictatorship, but a Constitutional Monarchy is a representative democratic system wherein the Monarch is merely the titular Head of State, and has less power than the President in a Parliamentary Republic - in fact, no power at all other than the power to deny executive government absolute power. The Monarch decides nothing in the British system, and is not even allowed to express any political opinion. This has been the case since Charles II - it works very well, and the House of Windsor does not cost the British taxpayer a penny.

[Mister D]

I'm sorry Kilgram, but there is a universe of difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy. The old type of Monarchy was the worst type of dictatorship, but a Constitutional Monarchy is a representative democratic system wherein the Monarch is merely the titular Head of State, and has less power than the President in a Parliamentary Republic - in fact, no power at all other than the power to deny executive government absolute power. The Monarch decides nothing in the British system, and is not even allowed to express any political opinion. This has been the case since Charles II - it works very well, and the House of Windsor does not cost the British taxpayer a penny.

That's not actually the "old" type of monarchy but a much more modern phenomenon. Moreover, absolute monarchies were not quite as absolute as we sometimes imagine.

I'm rather fond of monarchy myself.

[William]

That's not actually the "old" type of monarchy but a much more modern phenomenon. Moreover, absolute monarchies were not quite as absolute as we sometimes imagine.

I'm rather fond of monarchy myself.

That's true, cos even King John was limited by Magna Carta. But TBH, I have never lived under any other system than Constitutional Monarchy - it seems to work quite well and it has given us over 400 years of stable government.

[kilgram]

I'm sorry Kilgram, but there is a universe of difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy. The old type of Monarchy was the worst type of dictatorship, but a Constitutional Monarchy is a representative democratic system wherein the Monarch is merely the titular Head of State, and has less power than the President in a Parliamentary Republic - in fact, no power at all other than the power to deny executive government absolute power. The Monarch decides nothing in the British system, and is not even allowed to express any political opinion. This has been the case since Charles II - it works very well, and the House of Windsor does not cost the British taxpayer a penny.

It is worse than a Republic. I suffer a monarchy, too. Yes, suffer.

I disagree with you on this. A monarchy is a step backwards in democracy. What kind of logic and justification can be used if in theory we are equal at the law, but there are some people that have more rights just by birth right. Monarchy is something of the past and had not justification in modern times. Neither in Spain or in Great Britain.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk