Posted on 05/08/2011 9:36:55 AM PDT by annalex
First, monarchs are not dictators. Second, maybe some monarchs are. Maybe it is not their job to be "efficient". For example, what do you actually know of the feasibility of an irrigation system using ancient Egypt's available technology? What do you know of whether the Egyptians even wanted an "efficient" irrigation system? From what we know, the Egyptians deified and loved the Nile with its floods and droughts, -- they moved in and out as the floodplain condition dictated and were quite happy doing that. That was "efficient" for them (*).
Further, you live in an age blinded with technology and so you measure everything by the use of technology. That is foolishness. To an Egyptian the procurement of the afterlife was infinitely more important than watering gardens, hence the pyramids. That is, by the way, the wisdom Moses got from them, and we got from Moses, -- well, from Jesus, really,-- and now we lost it. Desire for the life eternal is what produced our civilization. Don't side with the vandals who seek to destroy it.
(*) Journey Back to Eden: My Life and Times Among the Desert Fathers .
Funny you should mention that in the context of American political system, -- where, despite its short existence and the supposed benefit of getting rid of the presidents through the ballot box, we have an assassination in every generation, and we don't even know of the attempts that fail.
A typical taxation level in the modern industrial democracy runs about 50% (it is often masked by complex tax system). Yet we have bridges falling down, a pension plan that is going bankrupt so we fix it with a peasfule invasion of foreign guest-laborers, and we are not in any war we cannot get out of if we wanted to. Show me a similar predicament in any monarchy.
Thank you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams
So it was with democracy or republicanism. And now it's the supporters of monarchy's turn to paint it in idealistic colors and argue that it's free of the usual corruptions of politics.
Monarchy now is a little like the direct election of senators. People promote it as a cure for what ails us. But society and people's thinking is already highly democratic.
A monarchy couldn't be put into place if it weren't, like Britain or Spain or the Scandinavian countries, essentially window dressing for a democratic or republican government. A king wouldn't last unless there was a representative government in place and in power beneath him, just as senators wouldn't have much real power if they weren't popularly elected. If a monarch really tried to act like the monarchs of pre-democratic eras he or she wouldn't last long.
Do kings and queens have a wider mental horizon? Sometimes. Some do think in terms of centuries, rather than 4 year election cycles. But in a hereditary system there are bound to be lemons. Sooner or later a Marcus Aurelius is succeeded by a Commodus. And there would be more lemons if monarchy were truly established: kings are so well behaved now because they realize how fragile their rule really is.
Are kings more attached to national values? Once upon a time, everybody was. Once upon a time you wouldn't have had rulers thinking that development in India or China could offset decline at home. But now you have people thinking that, and why would a king think any differently, especially when you consider that in their heyday kings and queens were accused of thinking more dynastically than nationally?
You read the article? Monarchy is not oppression, the system in Washington DC is today. That system, incidentally has much less in common with the Constitution than a monarchy would be.
You are correct that the constitutional order in the US indeed precludes a monarchy; but we are arguing in principle, are we not?
Monarchism is not any kind of a passing fad. For one thing, it was in existence for the bulk of recorded history. The republican systems are experiments and they are failing.
It is not a matter of painting monarcby is rosy colors either. You yourself admit that a king would have a longer horizon. That is the point, — I can readily admit that in the 2,000 of Christian world there have been bad monarchs. But monarchies recover from a bad monarch because, foremostly, a monarch is not asked to do anything. His job is purely reactive and conservational. A monarch disinterested in governance can simply have a good time and let the nation govern itself. Remember, a monarch is simply an owner of property, like you or I. Somehow we don’t get into a crisis because a road stays unpaved. He does not have to pull rabits out of a hat every 4 years. As someone with libertarian leanings I find that very attractive.
Definitely, in America, we are likely to get a diffuse, feudal system with a huge democratic component, rather than a absolute monarchy. That would be much in keeping with the American character. I don’t think an American monarch will ever monkey with the gold standard, or invent a Prohibition, or decide to fine-tune the demographics of Yugoslavia, or set up a national health care Ponzi scheme. But he would, given a brain the size of a pea, prevent the Congress from their excursions into foolishness.
Monarchy is by definition oppression. It has NOTHING to do with our Constitution - a document written by men who LOATHED Monarchy and the religious authorities that were so often their crutch.
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” Madison
The principle of freedom is what I am arguing.
No man can be free so long as he is a “subject” to a so called King.
You can call yourself free, and the house slave may think he is free also, but only free to be comfortable in your chains.
“Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams
The king does not oppress anyone. You are reacting with 18c. infantilism. The king owns roads, mint, mail, etc. and fights wars if they happen. No go list for yourself the things that Washington DC is busying itself with these days, and stop posting me two century old slogans.
Yes, according to legend, anyway... with King Codrus (sp?) being the last. His descendants ruled as hereditary archons (a kind of magistrate) for quite a while, until that was dissolved and archons were made elective, with a term of about a decade (IIRC). However, this is all distant past, and not a part of the Greek confederation of city-states which eventually evolved.
[roamer_1:] Character cannot be taught. It is learned by exposure, in trial and tribulation.
So is it taught by trial and tribulation at least? You seem to say two contradictory things.
Of course, trial and tribulation is a teacher. I am speaking of human teaching. I can pour my children full of myself... teach them in the way they should go - But that is no guarantee. What matters is when the rubber hits the road, when they are beyond all control - The choices they make right there, in that moment, define their character more than anything I can do.
The reality is that a kid from a noble family is taught that his future is in national service: he will have the obligation larger than his own family. He observes his father doing his work; his dad will take him to military campaigns and teach him to fight, -- he will learn the military craft, to endure pain, to face fear.
That is hardly the reality at all - the lion's share of privileged children are petulant and protected. How many fortunes built by the father have been squandered by his heirs? It is few indeed who are raised up in the way you describe. I will admit that THE heir is treated with a double dose of expectation and is given more tutelage in that regard - But that tutelage has hardly paid off historically.
Of course it can be learned. It can also be learned without the family, and so is the case with gained nobility; but the family helps. We actually have that in America as well: we have generations that go to West Point, or into politics.
There is no doubt that one can prepare the child - But no, the chances are that it won't be learned, as in order to learn, exposure is the key. And prolonged exposure at that. It is very seldom that a prince leads the charge. Quite normally, the prince (and the king, as well as his nobles) retire from the field to waiting tents and wagons at the rear of the field.
Nobility can also be lost. Cowardice, disloyalty are not crimes, but they are faults of character and the aristicratic system punishes them.
Hardly. Perhaps upon many and repeated actions so repulsive as to cause ultimate distress - And that only when the fault becomes deleterious in real terms to his direct peers... putting their own reign in jeopardy. But again, history is rife with notable examples of nobles and kings which were a scourge, and who were left to their own devices - Often suffering no effective measure against them at all.
Yes. There is no question that John Adams, Lincoln, Reagan were statesmen. But our system breeds them not. The early American system, buoyed on Protestant spirituality did so more than ours.
I see that being primarily due to socialism - an infection which is not compatible with a federal republic, or with capitalism. We are not in trouble because there is some flaw (there is a flaw, but not the need of an earthly king) in the federal republic, but rather because it is a federal republic no more. The solution is not to call for a king - but rather to return to the root (and the Root) that preserves us. And that notion is exactly what true American Conservatism sets out to perform.
Holding two contradictory statements in your head at once. Hallmark of liberal thinking...
What is foolish is thinking a Monarch would be any less susceptible to greed, avarice, or corruption than anyone else.
No, not a guarantee, but between a family and school that teach a youngster to become a statesman and a family that does not (and perhaps teaches to become an engineer), you are likely to find a statistical difference: the former children will be better prepared to be statesmen and the latter, engineers.
I will admit that THE heir is treated with a double dose of expectation and is given more tutelage in that regard - But that tutelage has hardly paid off historically
First, every child has the expectations to be of noble character, not just the future king. It is simply a cultural expectation. A similar thing exists today in established families: children of academics are raised with the expectatin that they will grow up in academia, children of politicians, military, engineers, teachers, etc. are better prepared for the field their parents worked in. And such family has access to resources peculiar to their field, they know the right people, know how to best advance a particular kind of career. If the system is closed to incoming outsiders completely, that part is bad, -- we call it corruption or cronyism, but the system of heritable privilege is a natural thing and a good thing.
How do you know it hasn't paid off historically? You cannot merely point to some underperforming heir: you need to compare that country with a similar one run by commoners. I, on the other hand, can make a comparison between the West in 20c -- run largely by democratic governments, -- and the same West in any other century, run largely by monarchs. Any century compares favorable to the 20th. The wars were more brutal, the rules of war did not apply any more, freedoms people took for granted disappeared in the 20c., the social progress that was the norm up to 1914 all of a sudden reversed. History indicts democracy.
Quite normally, the prince (and the king, as well as his nobles) retire from the field to waiting tents and wagons at the rear of the field
You speak with conviction, as if you have any facts to back that up and compare, say, casualty rates among the commanders of aristocratically led armies and otherwise, under similar tactical conditions. I can start this project:
| List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death | |
|---|---|
| Died of natural causes | 54 |
| In battle | 15 |
| Murdered or executed | 16 |
| Unknown | 17 |
| Minor other categories | 5 |
| Total | 107 |
List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death
history is rife with notable examples of nobles and kings which were a scourge
Again, can you compare statistically to politicians?
that being primarily due to socialism - an infection which is not compatible with a federal republic, or with capitalism
... Or with monarchy. However, socialism is quite compatible with democracy, and a republic does not seem to have anything to fight off the infection. We have about 60% of population who want socialism in one form or another. How can you federal-republic your way out of that?
A monarch, susceptible as he is, has no interest in expanding the government, and an elected politician has such interest.
More assertions not backed up by reality. How many wars of expansion have various Kings fought over the course of human history?
You have your pet theory. Good for you. Everyone needs a hobby. Your zealotry is clashing with reality though, and that way lies madness.
Your basic philosophy is about as Anti-American as it can get.
It is loathsome regressive idiotic and putrid. Also absolutely futile.
Any fool who said he was my King would get no tribute from me but lead delivered at high velocity - he and his bootlicking followers.
I would expect nothing less from any American worthy of the name.
Let Them Eat Cake.
There’s been plenty of abusive taxation by monarchs. That’s just one shining example. And of course you’re changing the discussion, I just said there’s a long history of monarchs taxing to enlarge their coffers, you added the percentage and direction and horrid spelling of peaceful.
REAL defenders of AUTHENTIC freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wvs-QniMLxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SyBGEjn8Q&NR=1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.