Debating Monarchy

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

It is not theoretical at all, but very real and current. There are still millions of slaves all over the world. Most choose slavery because the alternative would  be starvation. As an example, there are hundreds of thousands of slaves in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE right now, who have willingly rooted themselves up from their homes, usually India, Bangladesh or Indonesia, just to get to work as slaves in the Middle-East.

These are all eamples of Muslims living in Islamic society, not White or East Asian people living in a free market or something half-way there. I semi-quote to Stef's debunking of the idea in the next;

"Slavery is economically inefficient; who'd want to sign a contract stating they must be responsible for the life of someone else? That someone can't be smart or skilled, if he was he'd have found work or started his own work; therefore he must be very stupid and unskilled; therefore he must cost more than he can produce. Therefore, the idea of someone idiotically selling himself into slavery and then someone else buying it while in a society that roundly condemns slavery is ludicrous"

Context: White free market society. Semi-quote=I just boiled down what I remembered.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

As an example closer to home, Europeans are systematically voting away their freedoms willingly. In my home country, it is illegal not to send your child to kindergarten, it is illegal not to have social security, and it is illegal not to work (something, anything). This is already very much like slavery to me, and we voted for it. People have sold their souls on the not-so-free market. Imagine what they would do on the ultimate free market.

Pushing the goal post much? Actual slavery, and mob rule, are two different things. You started with actual slavery, i.e. the chattel kind, and now we speak of mob stupidity (which is also an argument for totalitarianism). 

A Free Market is founded on two things: the NAP and respect for property. Therefore there cannot be a coercive body to force people to do XY or Z. Everything would be voluntary. And in societies that were closest to that (like the early Roman Empire and early Roman Republic, post-Revolutionary America, Chile) were the least examples of infringement on the individual. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Sure. Every royal crown, except the Napoleonic crowns, of Europe can be traced back to either the Holy Roman Crown, or some other crown that was granted by the Pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. Therefore, he has the authority to bestow authority. 

Legitimacy requires 3 things: The will of God, the will of the People, and the will of other monarchs, who were presumably crowned legitimately. If either one of these is failing, then, the legitimacy can be called into question. It does not automatically render a monarch illegitimate, but it is henceforth questionable.

Which calls into question "how does the Pontiff gain his authority? His cardinals that voted him also?" "From God" requires God to have a way of speaking or writing it. Therefore some mortals must have conceived of the idea of a cloister of scholars being the best agency to make the Bible and lessons from it digestible for the masses, as well as provide a place for public debate and sanctuary. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

There is an argument to be made that government is in fact consensual. "We" voted for everything that we now call government. The "russian people" overthrew their Tsar, and they set up the soviet union. Without their consent, Lenin could have done nothing.

"The People" are a historically passive institution with only a minority of them active. I suppose you could say a passive "meh" is a surrendering of one's right to chose, however "the People" have never had the right to pick "none of the above". 

I never say "We" because I am only myself. I refuse to be blamed for the actions of others, or take credit for the valors of others. Only pride and shame are sensible "collective" emotions because neither necessarily require the one feeling them to be the cause of them, and neither are necessarily words of judgement and condemnation. In other words we do not, in a just society,  execute the guy living in another town because he feels shame for being the distant cousin of Ted Bundy.   

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

I understand your stance, but how are your standards the "good" standards. When I ask you "what is good", you reply "consent, conditions, size...", and when I ask you why they are good, you say "I like it more". Do you have a standard of UPB, accoring to which your opinion is correct. Its fine if you don't, its just that it is hard to talk about good and bad when I don't know your grounds.

<The awkward moment when I don't read ahead and find that question answered 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

This has been a point of conflict for hundreds of years, so I don't think we are going to resolve this here and now. We believe that no, the Church doesn't get things wrong. There are very very tight checks and balances in place in order to prevent doctrinal corruption. 

As a Roman Catholic, I admit fault and declare the Church possible of fault because it is comprised of mortals. Nothing tangible about the church differentiates it, no special system lacking by other agencies I mean, check it from corruption.

The easy example: Pope Francisco the First (and Last). 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

So is your statement that monarchies before the enlightenment were much less economically free than countries generally are today? I'm going to have to dig into some data before I can argue any further. I hope you will do the same.

Yes. I started "knowing this" when Stef pointed it out, what the Dark Ages were like. I don't know if I'll actually dig for data beyond a wikipedia article or something describing a particular country or state as I am busy working today. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Right. I can run with that definition for now.

Name me the country that has been the most just in history.

The Early American Republic (especially the WASP northern half).

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Then name me one that has been most stable,

The Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

one that has most prospered,

1860-1910 American Republic; Later Pinochet and post-Pinochet Chile. Victorian England. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

and one that has been a champion of progress.

Early American Republic; Pinochet's Chile; Augustus of the Roman Empire; Nobunaga Oda's realm in Japan; etc.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Do you think the will of an absolute ruler is more dangerous, or do you think the will of a mob is?

Easily the will of the uneducated and selfish mob. Even the whims of Dong Zhuo cannot be compared to the stupid sheeple that rolled over and took it anally when Lenin and Stalin came around. Both can be dangerous, especially when stripped of all morality (like Dong Zhuo), and neither can ever be truly "safe" since they all require the initiation of force. However I'd argue a decent and just King is superior to a complacent but not degenerate mob any day. The individual is far superior to the collective.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

I would ask you how stable the free market is, but since we haven't really had a good example of a market-run society, I'll not.

We do have half-way examples, in which case I'd point to the Roman Empire from Augustus to roughly 200 A.D. A pretty free society that had a very stable economy and the best living conditions in history until America came along, and it was only destroyed when the aging Empire started debasing the currency and acting like a typical republican government. 

[Gavitor]

On 7/17/2017 at 7:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Why should a person do what is wrong, immoral or anlawful? Are you referring to the monarch? I don't believe a monarch is allowed to do wrong. If so, please point out where exactly that is the case.

Monarchs are allowed to murder steal etc... Rulers are exempt from the rules. Why do you think this is acceptable or should be the case?

 

[S1988]

On 7/17/2017 at 9:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

I don't believe a monarch is allowed to do wrong. If so, please point out where exactly that is the case.

Well, there are countries like Thailand where it's actually a criminal offense to criticize the monarchy.

[M.2]

9 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

These are all eamples of Muslims living in Islamic society, not White or East Asian people living in a free market or something half-way there. I semi-quote to Stef's debunking of the idea in the next; "Slavery is economically inefficient; who'd want to sign a contract stating they must be responsible for the life of someone else? That someone can't be smart or skilled, if he was he'd have found work or started his own work; therefore he must be very stupid and unskilled; therefore he must cost more than he can produce. Therefore, the idea of someone idiotically selling himself into slavery and then someone else buying it while in a society that roundly condemns slavery is ludicrous" Context: White free market society. Semi-quote=I just boiled down what I remembered.

Pushing the goal post much? Actual slavery, and mob rule, are two different things. You started with actual slavery, i.e. the chattel kind, and now we speak of mob stupidity (which is also an argument for totalitarianism). 

I was bringing up examples of voluntary slavery.
China, if you want an east asian example, still has slavery. Christians, Buddhists, FalunGong practicioners are interned, sent to labour camps and harvested for their organs. Also, North Koreans are regularly "loaned" to Russia and China for slave work, which is a great opportunity for the Koreans, because they get more bread there, so they go willingly, even though their freedoms are much more restricted there.

If slavery is really so economically inefficient, then why do we have laws against it? You westerners automatically assume than anyone in the bondage of slavery was put there against their will. That is because you have gotten unfamiliar with the practice. More often than not, people willingly surrender their will to others. This is why I brought up the welfare state and the voting away of rights as an example. We are en-route to slavery ourselves.

Quote

Which calls into question "how does the Pontiff gain his authority? His cardinals that voted him also?" "From God" requires God to have a way of speaking or writing it. Therefore some mortals must have conceived of the idea of a cloister of scholars being the best agency to make the Bible and lessons from it digestible for the masses, as well as provide a place for public debate and sanctuary. 

The first Pope got his authority from Christ himself, and everyone else got their authority from the clergy. Who were presumably appointed by the Pope, therefore having the authority.
I wonder why this misconception is so widespread that cloisters were places where monks conspired to feed the masses with pre-digested information. I think the lie has been spread by people who have never been to a mass before, because every day on multiple occasions, we literally open the Bible and read from it, then explain the official doctrine. "But nobody spoke Latin" bullcrap. Everyone always understood latin, because latin was the official language of the Roman empire, and it was the Lingua Franka for many more centuries. Even I understand Latin, despite not having studied it.

Quote

"The People" are a historically passive institution with only a minority of them active. I suppose you could say a passive "meh" is a surrendering of one's right to chose, however "the People" have never had the right to pick "none of the above". 

The people are made up of individuals. It takes millions of individual decisions to move the masses. And yes, "meh" is also a decision and an action. When we catholics enter a confessional, we don't only confess the actions, but the inactions.

Quote

As a Roman Catholic, I admit fault and declare the Church possible of fault because it is comprised of mortals. Nothing tangible about the church differentiates it, no special system lacking by other agencies I mean, check it from corruption. The easy example: Pope Francisco the First (and Last). 

According to our tradition, the promise of Jesus Christ is a differentiating factor. But if you don't believe in that stuff, there is an argument that the Church, despite being under siege since its founding, has survived to this day against all odds, triumphing against the greatest of empires. 

I will argue on Papa Francesco when you bring me specific quotes along with the context. I also would like if you opened a separate thread, because its a bit off-topic. 

Quote

We do have half-way examples, in which case I'd point to the Roman Empire from Augustus to roughly 200 A.D. A pretty free society that had a very stable economy and the best living conditions in history until America came along, and it was only destroyed when the aging Empire started debasing the currency and acting like a typical republican government. 

No offence; I think your knowledge on historical countries and economies is too limited for a deep-diving discussion. Anyway, we already have a thread fo "best country in world", so feel free to take the conversation there. 

 

5 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Monarchs are allowed to murder steal etc... Rulers are exempt from the rules. Why do you think this is acceptable or should be the case?

 

I didn't know monarchs were allowed to murder and steal. The terms "murder" and "steal" have a connotation to them that they go against some sort of legal or moral standard. I suppose you mean to claim that monarchs are legally allowed to traverse moral rules. In that case, I would have to ask you for specific examples.

Quite frankly, I don't think that should be the case, and it is beyond me why you believe I do.

 

3 hours ago, S1988 said:

Well, there are countries like Thailand where it's actually a criminal offense to criticize the monarchy.

What's wrong with that?

[S1988]

58 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

What's wrong with that?

Monarchs, like all people, are humans, not deities. Therefore, they should be open to criticism, and not just for its own sake. Sometimes, pointing out the negative of something is helpful because people can discuss ways to arrive to a solution. If we swept all problems under the rug and pretended nothing's wrong, then they can exacerbate. 

In my opinion, a country that's not allowed to criticize its leaders isn't a free one at all. Besides, I have more respect for leaders (and other people) who aren't afraid to admit flaws than those who act as if they don't have any.

[Gavitor]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I didn't know monarchs were allowed to murder and steal. The terms "murder" and "steal" have a connotation to them that they go against some sort of legal or moral standard. I suppose you mean to claim that monarchs are legally allowed to traverse moral rules. In that case, I would have to ask you for specific examples.

Quite frankly, I don't think that should be the case, and it is beyond me why you believe I do.

the monarch is above the law...

[M.2]

6 hours ago, S1988 said:

Monarchs, like all people, are humans, not deities. Therefore, they should be open to criticism, and not just for its own sake. Sometimes, pointing out the negative of something is helpful because people can discuss ways to arrive to a solution. If we swept all problems under the rug and pretended nothing's wrong, then they can exacerbate. 

In my opinion, a country that's not allowed to criticize its leaders isn't a free one at all. Besides, I have more respect for leaders (and other people) who aren't afraid to admit flaws than those who act as if they don't have any.

I can get behind that. Although some monarchs are in fact considered deities, like the Emperor of Japan.
Asians are normally more prudent folk when it comes to speech directed at somebody of higher status. To them, a given person is surely of higher status because they know better, so "why would a lowlife like my criticise the King" is the attitude. It's as if I started railing against Mr.Molyneux for being a terrible presenter, all without having done anything myself.
In other cases, which is not limited to Asia. heads of state are regarded as representatives of the nation, therefore any word against them is a word against the nation itself. In Poland, for instance, it is illegal to criticise foreign heads of state because a wrong word against say... Putin could lead to a diplomatic incident, and nobody wants that.

2 hours ago, Gavitor said:

the monarch is above the law...

That is the saddest argument against monarchy I have ever come across on the internet. 

[Gavitor]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

That is the saddest argument against monarchy I have ever come across on the internet. 

That's because it wasn't an argument. Monarchs have mostly been above the law. Only recently now that they are basically just figure heads and other rulers have replaced them are they no longer above the law. Though some still believe the queen is.

Rulers always make themselves exempt from the law... This has always been the case. That changes when their power is usurped or there is revolt.

[luxfelix]

@Mishi2

Aren't monarchs, even if they are above the law (absolute monarchs as opposed to constitutional monarchs for example), still not above consequence -- their powers checked by the Church and the aristocracy?

Is ostracism applicable to an unpopular monarch?

[M.2]

17 hours ago, Gavitor said:

That's because it wasn't an argument. Monarchs have mostly been above the law. Only recently now that they are basically just figure heads and other rulers have replaced them are they no longer above the law. Though some still believe the queen is.

Rulers always make themselves exempt from the law... This has always been the case. That changes when their power is usurped or there is revolt.

Damn right it wasn't an argument. What does "mostly" mean? What does "above the law" mean? What does "law" mean? Do you think the monarchs just did whatever they felt like doing? Which century are you talking about? Which culture? Which country? What legal code?

The Queen of England is a terrible example. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means the authority of the Queen is restricted by the constitution. That was the point of the Magna Carta.

If you want to bring up Saudi Arabia, as an absolute monarchy, that is another bad examle, since Saudi Arabia is governed by strict Wahhaabist Sharia law which applies to the royal family as well.

Even if you bring up the most absolute of monarchies, the Holy See, even there the Pope abides by canon law.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

15 hours ago, luxfelix said:

@Mishi2

Aren't monarchs, even if they are above the law (absolute monarchs as opposed to constitutional monarchs for example), still not above consequence -- their powers checked by the Church and the aristocracy?

Is ostracism applicable to an unpopular monarch?

Yes, even it is not strictly called "law", there is always some form of restriction that applies to monarchs, usually set up by the religious class, the ruling class, or a previous monarch. As examples provided above. 
Ostracism was definitely applied, even as far as WW1. You made a bad move, you had made enemies among the populous, the ruling class, the religious class, and even other monarchs.

 

I think what Gavitor is complaining about is that Civil Law or Common Law does not apply to rulers, or at least not in the same manner as it applies to us common folk. I'll try to clear it up with a present day example... Suppose there is a politician in a foreign country with diplomatic immunity. That does not mean that the politician can do whatever he wants. In fact, even the slightest of blunders can get him recalled to the home country and court-martialled. Same with a monarch. He is not tried under the same laws that a commoner is, but he does not escape justice.

 

[luxfelix]

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I think what Gavitor is complaining about is that Civil Law or Common Law does not apply to rulers, or at least not in the same manner as it applies to us common folk. I'll try to clear it up with a present day example... Suppose there is a politician in a foreign country with diplomatic immunity. That does not mean that the politician can do whatever he wants. In fact, even the slightest of blunders can get him recalled to the home country and court-martialled. Same with a monarch. He is not tried under the same laws that a commoner is, but he does not escape justice.

 

So that monarch is above the common law within their realm but not elsewhere, while remaining beholden to consequences everywhere.

Can a comparison be made to homeowners and their estates (either within free market conditions or otherwise)?

[Gavitor]

11 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The Queen of England is a terrible example. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means the authority of the Queen is restricted by the constitution. That was the point of the Magna Carta.

So you admit that they were not restricted before the magna carta. thanks.

11 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I think what Gavitor is complaining about is that Civil Law or Common Law does not apply to rulers, or at least not in the same manner as it applies to us common folk. I'll try to clear it up with a present day example... Suppose there is a politician in a foreign country with diplomatic immunity. That does not mean that the politician can do whatever he wants. In fact, even the slightest of blunders can get him recalled to the home country and court-martialled. Same with a monarch. He is not tried under the same laws that a commoner is, but he does not escape justice.

A politician is not a monarch and in a lot of cases not a ruler.

I've yet to hear you explain why one person or group of people should be allowed to do what is considered wrong/immoral/unlawful for everyone else.

example tax (steal)

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎07‎. ‎22‎. at 3:34 AM, Gavitor said:

So you admit that they were not restricted before the magna carta. thanks.

Wow. You are very bad at this. No offence.

Quote

A politician is not a monarch and in a lot of cases not a ruler.

I am not going to try again.

Quote

I've yet to hear you explain why one person or group of people should be allowed to do what is considered wrong/immoral/unlawful for everyone else. example tax (steal)

Alright. This is the last time I will indulge your intellectual laziness. And only because I try to be a good christian.

Let's go with your example; taxation. Since you haven't specified which legal system, which monarchial system, which era we are talking about, I will use a gigantic brush.
In a traditional european monarchy (note: not every type of monarch owns the land) every spot of land belongs to the monarch. We can argue about how legitimate his claim over the land is, but it is a simple fact that he is the one who was recognised (by whom is varying) as legitimate owner of the land. If you are someone on this land, you are subject to his rules. If you are using his land, (for example, farm, mine, build on it) then you owe him what he charges for the use of his land. That is what we call tax. If you suddenly refuse to pay, then he has the moral and legal right to send in armed men to force you to pay or to leave. Quite simply because it you who is stealing from him.

 

[luxfelix]

Thought you might find this interesting:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/interview-with-the-mad-monarchist/