Manarchy vs. Democracy

[ZX3]

For what its worth, and because it would seem to peg exactly with the theme of this forum, and a topic on this forum, I pose the following:

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man."
2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige.
3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is.
4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office.
5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain.
6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office.
6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of democracy.
7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature.
8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side."
9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed.
10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption.
11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is.
12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch.
13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters.
14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so).
15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs.
16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election.
17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies.

[colonelguppy]

is this supposed to be satire or something?

[Jazzratt]

Even the other cretins in here disagree with you, I think that warrants an immediate fail.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:03 PM
Even the other cretins in here disagree with you, I think that warrants an immediate fail.
:lol: He fails because the capitalists disagree with him. Nice logic from a Communist.

Seriously though ZX3, you fail for so many other reasons.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:28 PM
For what its worth, and because it would seem to peg exactly with the theme of this forum, and a topic on this forum, I pose the following:

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man."
2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige.
3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is.
4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office.
5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain.
6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office.
6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of democracy.
7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature.
8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side."
9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed.
10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption.
11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is.
12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch.
13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters.
14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so).
15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs.
16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election.
17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies.
This is brimming with flaws, you are either incredibly deluded, or attempting (and failing) at producing some form of satire

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Oct 11 2006, 09:06 PM--> (RedStar1916 @ Oct 11 2006, 09:06 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 09:03 PM
Even the other cretins in here disagree with you, I think that warrants an immediate fail.
:lol: He fails because the capitalists disagree with him. Nice logic from a Communist.

Seriously though ZX3, you fail for so many other reasons. [/b]
My logic ran more along the lines that if both normal, intelligent people & complete mouth breathers disagree with him the idea must be so intensly bad that it doesn't even warrant thinking about.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:53 PM
is this supposed to be satire or something?
Werent you the one who said a Monarchy would be fine if you had a good monarch?

[which doctor]

Someone should correct the thread title before I die of laughter :D :D :D

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Raj Radical+Oct 11 2006, 04:22 PM--> (Raj Radical @ Oct 11 2006, 04:22 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:53 PM
is this supposed to be satire or something?
Werent you the one who said a Monarchy would be fine if you had a good monarch? [/b]
uh yeah

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:23 PM
Someone should correct the thread title before I die of laughter :D :D :D
Maybe he is a bostonian :D

[loveme4whoiam]

Damn, I didn't even notice that :lol:

When I read this, I thought about actually taking each point apart and explaining why they are patently absurd... but its just easier to call you an idiot.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:28 PM
For what its worth, and because it would seem to peg exactly with the theme of this forum, and a topic on this forum, I pose the following:

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man."
2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige.
3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is.
4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office.
5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain.
6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office.
6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of democracy.
7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature.
8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side."
9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed.
10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption.
11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is.
12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch.
13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters.
14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so).
15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs.
16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election.
17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies.
This is all quite true. Monarchy is superior to democracy.

This is also self-evident in the fact that monarchies are stable, and democracies, (like communism), are so unstable they have never really existed, except for perhaps fleeting moments.


Even the other cretins in here disagree with you, I think that warrants an immediate fail.
How has he failed? He has told the complete truth. Democracy sux. It has brought us a century of socialism after all.

Talking about an ideal governemnt however, personally I think a senatorial aristocracic republic like the United States or ancient Rome is the best.

I think you communist trolls should actually read what this guy wrote before shooting your mouths off like retards.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

A monarchy is absolute rule. Even if someone can be entrusted to be an absolute ruler, they their heirs will not continously display their same qualities.

[red team]

For what its worth, and because it would seem to peg exactly with the theme of this forum, and a topic on this forum, I pose the following:

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man."
2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige.
3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is.
4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office.
5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain.
6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office.
6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of democracy.
7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature.
8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side."
9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed.
10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption.
11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is.
12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch.
13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters.
14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so).
15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs.
16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election.
17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies.

18. A "manarch" has a very BIG dick. He has a bigger dick than all the other worker bees.

[Zero]

When I looked at this topic at first I thought ZX3 was referring to Patriarchy.

[Janus]

This is also self-evident in the fact that monarchies are stable
Which is why they're all still around. :lol:

Wow. I hope some of you aren't serious about this. I didn't think that any absolute monarchist supporters would still be around much less have access to a computer.

[Herman]

He's probably some 13 year old kid who plays World of Warcraft and believes that Azeroth should be role-played in real life.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk+Oct 12 2006, 12:04 AM--> (thisguyisatotaljerk @ Oct 12 2006, 12:04 AM) I think you communist trolls should actually read what this guy wrote before shooting your mouths off like retards. [/b]
Yeah, we're the trolls :rolleyes: Fucknut. But okay I'll go through point by point on his stupid post.


Troll [email protected] 11 2006, 12:28 PM
For what its worth, and because it would seem to peg exactly with the theme of this forum, and a topic on this forum, I pose the following:

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man." So? The monarch is an autocrat.

2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige. What makes this a good thing, you dribbling cretin?

3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is. Even with the best education in the world an unfit ruler is an unfit ruler, and because the monarchists critea for rulership selection is "They have the right parents" there are bound to be complete idiots (like you) taking power.

4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office. So not only do we have a drolling idiot in power, but he's been taught about a giant sky fairy and what said sky fairy wants us to do? Sounds utterly fantastic, where do I sign up :rolleyes: ?

5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain. Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about?

6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office. THat's only true if you assume the royal family doesn't start off as ethincally nationalist. Most generations of monarchs come from the same ethnic background as the previous one anyway, it's only if a marriage is arranged for diplomatic reasons that two roayls of different ethnicities will reproduce.

6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of democracy. See above. Avoid making the same point twice next time.

7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature. No, it isn't putting power in hands of a few, it's putting power in the hands of one - it's autocracy. Beyond that it's a glorified dictatorship.

8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side." What the fuck are you talkign about? Introducing an 'above' immediatly results in a less liberated society.

9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed. Run that by me again, this time making an actual point.

10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption. QUite the reverse, they're there for a long time - the law of averages alone would prevent most of them from staying squeaky clean.

11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is. And in a monarchy the majority have to constantly flatter the minority of one that is the ruler.

12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch. Pure shit. A monarch can treat different groups of people differently depending on what legislature they pass.

13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters. I'd rather have somone who was responsible to me and my fellows than to some enourmous imaginary wizard.

14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so). The monarch is the monarch's own property and is of the highest class - that's the whole point in them. They are not 'forced' to do anything because they have no one to answer to (apart from the angry populace - which has proven the downfall of many.).

15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs. The Monarch wll only be restrained as far as they are scared of their people. English civil war anyone? Somone named Charles fucked up, and excuse the pun, royally there.

16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election. Only true of a representative democracy. A monarch rarely has the brains to plan for that long.

17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies. Some examples of these great statesmen?

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:04 AM

This is all quite true. Monarchy is superior to democracy.

This is also self-evident in the fact that monarchies are stable, and democracies, (like communism), are so unstable they have never really existed, except for perhaps fleeting moments.

Talking about an ideal governemnt however, personally I think a senatorial aristocracic republic like the United States or ancient Rome is the best.

I think you communist trolls should actually read what this guy wrote before shooting your mouths off like retards.
How is it superior to democracies? Look at the French Monarchy for chrissakes, i'd hardly call that a stable monarchy. Russian Monarchy certainly wasn't.

I swear reading your posts, i think you are just posting shit like that to piss us all off.... Please, read a book you thick monarchist twat. It'd really benefit you.

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:28 PM


15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs.
16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election.
17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies.

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule.
The President is a "party man."

Sure, one guy making all the decisions, if anyone disagrees with the
Monarch, he has the right to have them executed. One man in power
equals a selfish bastard who wants the working class to shut up and
work, the middle class to fuel the economy and the first class to have
everything the other two classes don't have exclusively to themselves.


2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country.
Laws can be pushed through prestige.

Laws that have no regard whatsoever for the welfare of the lower
classes. Laws that permit torture, kidnapping and execution of those
who are "fit" for it.


3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader
rarely is.

Yes but a monarch is born into a rich family, therefore his/her family
has the means to pay for a good education. The majority of democratic
leaders have come from poor(ish) backgrounds and have worked to be
where they are. Of course there are exceptions.


4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A
democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of
office.

And how do you prepare yourself for it? Please elaborate


5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related
and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to
obtain.

How is warfare limited under a monarchist regime? Old time monarchs
were always going to war and hacking the shit out of each other...
Yeah, sounds peaceful to me



6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the
country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism
which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which
usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office.

British Royal family is of German heritage. The queen's husband is a
racist, evil, twisted SOB. Once a monarchy is established, it's that
bloodline that'll continue. It sounds like it's a form of ethnic
cleansing there.



6. Monarchy is interacial, which also works against the development of
ethnic nationalism which seems accompany the rise of
democracy.

Ethnic Nationalism? I don't know what that means but if I were to make a wild stab, i'd say that it has everything to do with the slogan "creating a whiter britan" that the BNP seem to be spouting these days.


7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature.

As far as i'm aware Oligarchy is a form of tyranny... a real democracy doesn't focus on a tyrannical perspectus.


8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side."

As i have said before, Monarchy involves ONE person in power who dictates the law of the land to the lower classes. If you disagree with him you can be executed... Democracy has at least the basic human rights which prevent such an abuse of power. And don't try telling me that the USA doesn't, because IMO the USA isn't a true democracy.


10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption.

Heh. Bullshit


12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch.

And therefore everyone's tyrant




13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters.

And who says God exists? The voters vote for a leader because the majority of them beleive him/her to be the best person for the job. In a monarchy the people have no say over who gets into power


14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country

Eh? what the fuck does that mean?

[Janus]

I think you communist trolls should actually read what this guy wrote before shooting your mouths off like retards.
You do realize that this is revolutionaryleft right? This is not a forum for monarchists to discuss lives that they wish they could have and balls they wish they could attend. I mean, even your restricted buddies here are dumbfounded by your strange beliefs.


Hey Thiguyisatotaljerk every single post you make on these forums makes you look like more and more of a troll do us all a favour and stop posting here.
Well, what else did you expect from someone with that username? Anyways, there's no point to make more "go away" posts.

[ZX3]

I posted this thread in response to a note on the "Monarchism" topic to the effect that it is impossible to defend monarchy. It really isn't, though.

But it is almost impossible to defend it on this particular site. Not because of the brilliance or soundness of the retorts, (which were few and far between), but simply because there is no common framework, no common language, upon which to debate. There is a far greater common framework between the devotees of this site, and say, fascism (which in fact has always been anti-monarchial. Indeed the BNP which was mentioned and accurately described as white nationalist movement favors the establishment of a British republic), which would agree with the broad objections to monarchy presented here. Monarchism is the true "opposing ideology" even far more so than capitalism, which may or may not support a republican form of government.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:28 PM

Well i am an American cappie and monarchy is impossible to defend thats why its dead and gone and only in the history books where it belongs.
Monarchy actually still exists in a lot of places today.

The Maoists in Nepal are currently overthrowing a monarchy.

The UK and most Scandinavian countries are "constitutional monarchies".

One could also classify the Catholic Church as being nothing more than a huge international monarchy.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 13 2006, 09:25 PM--> (patton @ Oct 13 2006, 09:25 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:48 PM

[email protected] 13 2006, 03:28 PM

Well i am an American cappie and monarchy is impossible to defend thats why its dead and gone and only in the history books where it belongs.
Monarchy actually still exists in a lot of places today.

The Maoists in Nepal are currently overthrowing a monarchy.

The UK and most Scandinavian countries are "constitutional monarchies".

One could also classify the Catholic Church as being nothing more than a huge international monarchy.
Hey SovietPant i thought the king of Nepal was removed from power a couple of months ago?

I also thought the Englands royal familly and those Scandinavian countrys with monarchy were figureheads only and had no say in the day day running of the government? [/b]
Which is why he said they are constitutional monarchies.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:51 AM
I posted this thread in response to a note on the "Monarchism" topic to the effect that it is impossible to defend monarchy. It really isn't, though.
Prove it, make a proper argument in favour.


But it is almost impossible to defend it on this particular site. Not because of the brilliance or soundness of the retorts, (which were few and far between), Why can't you admit defeat? There is no shame in losing a debate.
but simply because there is no common framework, no common language, upon which to debate. Yes there fucking well is, the common language is, usually, that of political debate. Also a debate doesn't rest on 'common frameworks', most debates arise because of fundamental differences in outlooks or mental frameworks.

There is a far greater common framework between the devotees of this site, and say, fascism (which in fact has always been anti-monarchial. Indeed the BNP which was mentioned and accurately described as white nationalist movement favors the establishment of a British republic),which would agree with the broad objections to monarchy presented here. Aye they agree on A FEW FUCKING POINTS, so fucking what? It does not indicate a great common framework because there is so much fundamental dofference between leftism and fascism. Hell capitalists and anarchists are both staunch supporters of individual rights, this doesn't put a common framework between captian uber cappie and Johnny the angry prole.
Monarchism is the true "opposing ideology" even far more so than capitalism, which may or may not support a republican form of government. Well, yeah of course it is darling, it's a full historical leap backwards from what we strive for, my little pet, but it's also just one of many opposing ideologies we restrict, duck. Also capitalism is fundamentally republican, my poor confused chickadee, it supports, ostensibly, a meritocracy, love. Now fuck off into a hole and die.

[ZX3]

1. Monarchy, by its nature, is dissassociated from party rule. The President is a "party man." So? The monarch is an autocrat.

So, often, is a president.


2. A monarch is both political and social head of the country. Laws can be pushed through prestige. What makes this a good thing, you dribbling cretin?



Because despite your fantasies, there will always be government.

3. A monarch is educated for his job. A democratic leader rarely is. Even with the best education in the world an unfit ruler is an unfit ruler, and because the monarchists critea for rulership selection is "They have the right parents" there are bound to be complete idiots (like you) taking power.



Certainly this could be the case. People are not perfect after all, so no system devised by people will be perfect. But the odds are far greater that a monarch will be educated for the job far more than a democratically elected head of state.

4. The education of a monarch is also moral and spiritual. A democratic leader is almost never "prepared" to assume the reins of office. So not only do we have a drolling idiot in power, but he's been taught about a giant sky fairy and what said sky fairy wants us to do? Sounds utterly fantastic, where do I sign up :rolleyes: ?



The education demonstrates that there is a limit to his power. A democracy is about unlimited government power.

5. Monarchy is an international institution. All are related and warfare was always limited, nor peace difficult to obtain. Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about?



I'm talking about that wars under monarchies are not total wars, which involve the objective of completely destroying the "enemy." As is the case involving wars between democracies.

6. Monarchs are usually ethnically mixed, and rarely of the country they rule. As such there are limits to the ethnic nationalism which will develop in monarchies as opposed to democraicies, which usually ban outsiders, foreigners, from holding office. THat's only true if you assume the royal family doesn't start off as ethincally nationalist. Most generations of monarchs come from the same ethnic background as the previous one anyway, it's only if a marriage is arranged for diplomatic reasons that two roayls of different ethnicities will reproduce.

Historically, it is a safe asumption. The rise of nationalism and ethnic politics have always been pronounded in democracies (republics) than monarchies.



7. A monarchy is not oligarchial, as is a democracy, by nature. No, it isn't putting power in hands of a few, it's putting power in the hands of one - it's autocracy. Beyond that it's a glorified dictatorship.



An oligarchy is rule for the benefit of the rulers. That is the nature of democracy. That is not the nature of monarchy.

8. Since monarchy is "rule from above" it has far more liberal possibilities than democracy, which is "rule from the side." What the fuck are you talkign about? Introducing an 'above' immediatly results in a less liberated society.



Not really. There is far more control from one peers, than from above.


9. A monarchy is a common frame of referene which can work to mitigate extremes in society as controlling forces can be relaxed. Run that by me again, this time making an actual point.



It means that a monarch is a non-political anchor which people can rally around in times of political upheaval.

10. The long tenure of a monarchy makes them more resistent to graft and corruption. QUite the reverse, they're there for a long time - the law of averages alone would prevent most of them from staying squeaky clean.



Historically, that is not the case.

11. There is no need to flatter majorities in a monarchy. A democracy always needs to tell the majority how wonderful the majority is. And in a monarchy the majority have to constantly flatter the minority of one that is the ruler.

But who cares. majorities have done more harm to minorities, than minorities to majorities.


12. The monarch is a protector of minorities within a country, because he or she is everyone's monarch. Pure shit. A monarch can treat different groups of people differently depending on what legislature they pass.



They can, but they don't. However, that description is far more accurate for democracies, who after all, would have the mandate of the people to do so.

13. The monarch is a responsible person, even if that responsibility is to God alone. In a democracy, the elected can simply state they were following the wishes of the voters. I'd rather have somone who was responsible to me and my fellows than to some enourmous imaginary wizard.



Sure. And the results can be bloody.

14. The monarch is a public property which can be claimed by all. It is also classless, so it they are forced to marry outside the country (unfortunately, thebncurrent generation of monarchs have not done so). The monarch is the monarch's own property and is of the highest class - that's the whole point in them. They are not 'forced' to do anything because they have no one to answer to (apart from the angry populace - which has proven the downfall of many.).



Monarchs always had people to answer to. Historically, it is true that monarchs could not marry within the lesser nobility of one's own country.

15. Te monarch will be restrained in actions by thoughts of his patrimony. The great gamblers of history have rarely been monarchs. The Monarch wll only be restrained as far as they are scared of their people. English civil war anyone? Somone named Charles fucked up, and excuse the pun, royally there.



Which is part of patrimony as well. In a democracy, the prez is responsible to no one.

16. A monarchy can plan on a grand scale- a democracy until the next election. Only true of a representative democracy. A monarch rarely has the brains to plan for that long.

That is more of a juvenile slander.


17. The rise of great staesmen have been fostered more in monarchies than in democracies. This probably has to do with the rank ameauturism which accompanies democracies. Some examples of these great statesmen?

Bismark, cavour, Churchill[/QUOTE]








[QUOTE]

[Jazzratt]

YOu know, if you edit your post it becomes infinitley more readably, and therfore I can adrss your points more easily.

[bezdomni]

Hey SovietPant i thought the king of Nepal was removed from power a couple of months ago?

He wasn't "removed from power", but he has allowed a provisional government with some of the reformist elements of Nepal. It is still completely controlled by the monarchy though and the king still has ultimate authority.

The CPN(M) called a cease-fire about a month ago with the interim government so they could remove all aspects of the monarchy. The cease fire was good for up to a year and stipulated that they were not allowed to import weapons. Within a short amount of time, the government was caught importing a ton of bombs, thereby violating the cease fire.

The king might not be the "offical" autocratic ruler, but he is one nonetheless.



I also thought the Englands royal familly and those Scandinavian countrys with monarchy were figureheads only and had no say in the day day running of the government?

Some of the scandinavian monarchs hold more power than you'd think. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the King of Norway can veto a bill at any time he sees fit. Of course, he hasn't done this since the 70s, but it is still there.

Figureheads or not, monarchies still exist and most monarchs (even in constitutional monarchies) still hold some political power or influence.

[Janus]

Not really. There is far more control from one peers, than from above.
It depends on the age and astuteness of the monarchy but generally a monarch has the potential to be totally separated from his/her subjects since succession is determined by blood rather than a vote.


It means that a monarch is a non-political anchor which people can rally around in times of political upheaval.
That political upheaval will most likely be caused by the monarchy itself. The succession dispute is another major problem with monarchy as it causes much of the instability.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Right now the only place I see in the world where the people support the King is in the Thailand, but I am unsure if that is simply propaganda or if they actually do so.

Monarchy has too little support generally to ever be brought back into being - both capitalists, bourgeois, workers, and revolutionaries are allied against it, thus giving it little hope of arising again.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:38 PM
Right now the only place I see in the world where the people support the King is in the Thailand, but I am unsure if that is simply propaganda or if they actually do so.

Monarchy has too little support generally to ever be brought back into being - both capitalists, bourgeois, workers, and revolutionaries are allied against it, thus giving it little hope of arising again.
Monarchy will indeed never be brought back. It fills a role in governing which most people do not understand.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:09 PM

Not really. There is far more control from one peers, than from above.
It depends on the age and astuteness of the monarchy but generally a monarch has the potential to be totally separated from his/her subjects since succession is determined by blood rather than a vote.


It means that a monarch is a non-political anchor which people can rally around in times of political upheaval.
That political upheaval will most likely be caused by the monarchy itself. The succession dispute is another major problem with monarchy as it causes much of the instability.
It is true a monarch can be separate from his or her subjects. But this also is not neccessarilly bad, as it means perhaps a more objective viewer of the situation.

Successyional disputes have certainly caused problems. But so have succession issues in democracies. The latter case seems far more obvious and frequent.