www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy.

Can you think of a more inefficient empire than the ramshackle, polyglot realm of the Hapsburgs?

Nelson-



I am advocating a Constitutional Monarchy, but take exception at this.

Absolute Monarchy is not Big Government. Unless you’ve read “The 5000 Year Leap” or works derived from it, its really difficult to even see why you’d think it would be.

France before the Revolution was an Absolute Monarchy, and was far from a Big Government.

Under the Feudal System, the actual Size of the Government, as reflected in its leucocratic Machinations and its Tax Policy, was actually far smaller than in any Republic.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Feudal


The idea that Absolute Monarchy would be Big Government makes no sense anyway. Ultimately in an Absolute Monarchy you have only one Ruler and no other Government other than his directly appointed Ministers who run local regions in a direct Fashion.

That’s actually a lot smaller than the various boards, counsels, and Senates that exist in a Republic.





The Feudal System was not Big Enough to supply you with what you need. The feudal System was the smallest possible Government that ever existed in the History of Humanity.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684

Hoppe argues that the transition from Monarchy to Democracy both reduced our Morality, and cases us to loose our Freedom. Monarchy is superior to Democracy because it is base don private Contract and Private ownership as opposed to collectivism.

Hoppe is an anarchist, who favours No Government, and see’s Monarchy as a step up from Democracy.

I don’t get how some thing that Absolute Monarchy=Big Government when Absolute Monarchy would mean either no Parliament, or small and weak Parliament. Absolute Monarchy has been far, far, far smaller than even Constitutional Monarchy.

For Heavens Sake, they weren’t Communists!



Which increase the Tax Burden 3 fold and which was founded in an ungodly Rebellion against Just and lawful Government. Also, the British Government was not as Tyrannical as its depicted in Revolutionary War propaganda. The complaints in the Declaration of Independence are exaggerated and really not Valid. The King didn’t do most of them, Parliament did, and even then most weren’t that bad. EG, the King didn’t let them steal more Indian land, or harass them. Or should I call them Savages like the DOI did? He let the French Catholics keep their Laws an Customs in Quebec. Come on, these complaints are silly.


Jefferson was an Immoral, Hypocritical Opportunist.

That said, I am a Libertarian, and want Small Government.

Please visit this Blog I frequent.

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/09/libertarianism-and-medieval-monarchy.html

Its not like I want a large State that cares for all our needs and tells everyone what to do. I just think privately owned government based around Contractual Agreement is better than a duly elected peoples government, because in the end that’s just Public ownership.




Actually this is not True.

While it is true that Totalitarianism is bad, all Totalitarian States have been Republics, not Monarchies.

Also, I will repeat, Absolute Monarchies have never been Big Governments. I don’t see why people think an Absolute Monarchy would be a Big Government when Historically they have been small and operated on the Catholic Principle of Subsidy.


http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/06/monarchy-is-not-tyranny.html

And


http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2009/08/absolute-vs-arbitrary-monarchy.html

Please read the Links.



This is why I am a Monarchist.

Lets not forget, Jesus Christ is our King, not our Duly Elected President. God is a Monarch, and never once established a Republic.

Scotty-



But Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not Kings. And be honest yourself, the US President has all the same Powers the King of Great Britain use to have in 1776.

It always bothers me that people seem to think all Monarchs were all Powerful. The United States President has only one Limitation that King George lacked, and that was the power to dissolve Parliament was denied the President, while retained by the King.

Otherwise, the Constitutionally Limited King George the Third had all the same Powers as did the King.

As to Hitler, he was a National Socialist whose desire was to create a Maser Race and for German Superiority. However, if you read his writings he was not overly fond of the Church, and wanted to supplant it.

He also Focused on Social Justice and Democracy by means of the State, representing the Pure Aryan People, would regulate Wealth and had a Powerful Central State.

I am a Feudalist who wants a Decentralised State and absolute rights over Property to be Protected.

By the way, that brings s to Stalin and Pol Pot. Both were Communists. Both Government in accordance to Marxist Theory. Both therefore wanted to Abolish all Titles of Nobly and create a Government rooted in absolute Equality of all and a Pure Democratic Structure.

Pol Pot succeeded. He created total Equality.

So no, Pol Pot was not ruling like an Absolute King, he ruled like a Communist. So did Stalin.

Both wanted to end Private Property ownership, Family Units, and any sort of Private Enterprise, which Monarchs did not do. They also wanted to create a Government in which all goods and services are distributed evenly, and to end all Social Hierarchy. That is the opposite of Monarchy. So saying they were like Absolute monarchs is misleading and dishonest. The Doctrines of Communism are Antithetical to Monarchism. I can discuss this in detail if you’d like.



Actually the Queen does more than this, and does have Theoretical Powers. Her signature is needed to make Laws into Binding Laws. While she never refuses ascent, she theoretically could. She can also dissolve Parliament, and intervene in Political Disputes.

But I agree, the Queen needs to be allowed to use her Powers without threat of being Removed.


I didn’t advocate Absolute monarchy, but I do want a Powerful Monarch.

By the way, the Tax Burden for upkeep of the Queen is smaller than the US Governments Tax Burden for the president. Most of the Queens money comes from the Crown Estates, not the Tax Payer.




Its not a Unique system…


Actually this is Relative. There was freedom of Speech in many Medieval Kingdoms, and Freedom of Speech, Pres, and Assembly existed in Security in Great Britain and Canada for longer than the US has existed. A lo of the US Bill of Rights that secures these things was taken from the 1688 Bill of Rights in England.

Britain today ignores the Rights given because Britain today has become a Socialist Republic in Practise. The more Democratic things become, the less power the Queen Has and the more they make the Lords impotent, an stuff the House with dreadful life Peers, the worse things get. Democracy is thus a Poison.


As for America, keep in mind that n the Civil War the same American Government arrested people for opposing the Civil War, shut down Newspapers critical of Lincoln, and ultimately engaged in tactics to suppress Free Association.

Granted, this was a Union problem and not a Confeerate one…







Actually its more complex than this. When Benjamin Franklin was sent before the King, he was given orders by the Colonies to not agree to any arrangement that would give the Colonies Representation. This is because they knew that the Taxation was actually Fair. The Taxes were being collected to pay off a Debt the Colonies owed, and ot secure defence for said Colonies in the Future.

The Taxes were Low, and precisely the sort of Taxes the Colonists said they’d not Mind.

All other taxes ad been Repealed due to Colonial protests.

Had the Colonies won Representation they knew they would loose the Vote in Parliament, and they’d also loose their powerful Slogan.

It was a Politically designed Slogan that helped Rally popular Support that didn’t really represent the dynamics of the situation.


Lets see, Monarchy allied with the Church and listened to the Bishops more often than not. Democracy wants Secularism to the point that we cant even Pray on Public Property.


Monarchy had made it a point to acknowledge God in the Coronation of the King. Democracy has fought tooth and nail to ensure we focus on “We, the People” and forget God.

Monarchy Rules by Divine Right, Democracy by peoples Mandate.

Freedom of Speech has been suppressed in most of Europe and in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere, and the more those Nations Democratise the more Freedom is Lost. The only place this has not been True in is the United States and even here its not always been so True, just see the current Hate Speech Laws in some States.

Monarchy fostered Private Ownership as a Principle of Law. Democracy Favours collectivism and collective Responsibility.

Monarchy Favours Traditional Family, Democracy favours Hedonism and Libertine Sexuality.

Need I go on?

Then you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Because, under a feudal system, all property belongs to the king, who then parcels it out as fiefs to his retainers in exchange for feudal service (usually military). Vassals of the king can become feudal lords in their own right by parceling out lands they hold from the king to their own retainers, in exchange for their feudal service, and so on, and so on, down to the minor gentry.

In a feudal system, there is no such thing as private property, or property rights, except those which the king chooses honor, or which his vassals can extract from him by means of charters. However, medieval charters were ignored or revoked with remarkable frequency, so don't look for too much protection there.

Stuart-


I should have said Neo-Feudalist. Still, one can say the same for America’s Founding Fathers or the French revolutionaries. Prior to the 18th century, the model of a Republic was Rome. Rome had a Senate but that was hardly the Two House Legislature we see in America and had nothing equivalent to a President.

I’d modify the system somewhat, but retain certain things. I’d allow small Property Owners, with an understanding of Sovereignty Rights being distinct from Property Rights, in the same Fashion that Mineral Rights are distinct, and can be sold without property Rights being sold.

I’d allow the King to have Sovereignty Rights over the Nation, but he’d not have the Property Rights or all lots.


Actually the Medieval Period feudal System was never consistent. The term wasn’t even coined till the 1600’s to describe a past system. The Truth is, the Feudal System is more of an Umbrella description of various arrangements based around Land Allocation, and was never uniform in practise.


I personally loved how Sark’s feudal System worked till the Barclays forced them in court to convert to a Democracy.



I’d retain the Human Rights provisions we have today, but safeguard them against collectivism by making the landholders Rulers.

The Roman constitution was incredibly elaborate in its division of powers. The Senate, for instance, had no real legislative power at all, but could only issue "recommendations" (senatus consulti), which would then be ratified by the various assemblies (popular, tribal, etc.). The Consuls presided over the Senate and had subsumed the war-leader responsibilities of deposed kings (whose religious duties were maintained by the Rex Sacrorum). The Praetors (originally two) carried out the administrative duties of the king and the king's council. The ancient priesthood of the Roman kingdom, the Flaminate, was continued but relegated to an inferior position by the new Republican priesthood, the Pontifices.

New offices emerged over time, such as the Tribunes of the Plebs, whose original power (tribunicia potestas) was limited to intercession on the part of accused plebs being prosecuted by (originally patrician) magistrates. Later, Tribunes got the right to bring proposed legislation directly to the Popular Assembly, bypassing the Senate. The last years of the Republic were dominated by the struggle for power between those two groups.

So, you are right to the extent that the detailed structure of the U.S. Constitution is different from the organic Roman constitution--but the governing principles were the same: a strong executive checked by divided government and reliance on countervailing powers.


So, basically, we're dealing with a political theory, and nothing that ever actually existed, so there's really no way of telling whether it would work or not.


True, but the broad outlines of feudalism are pretty consistent, and you can select details from different times and places; e.g., English feudalism in the Norman period is different both from contemporary French or German feudalism, as well as later feudalism during the heyday of the Plantagenets, which in turn differed from French and German feudalism in the 13th and 14th centuries.

But in all situations, feudalism worked only because the ability of the central government to impose its will was distinctly limited by medieval technology. That is to say, military power was expensive enough to be the purview of the aristocracy, but no so expensive that only the central state could afford it (as later occurred with the rise of artillery). Also, the ability of the king to keep track of what was going on in his kingdom was hampered by primitive transportation, communications and record keeping.

The modern nation-state exists because of revolutions in warfare, communications and record-keeping, which potentially has the power to enslave huge numbers of people. Whenever a single individual has been able to harness the power of the nation state (beginning with Napoleon), that has been the usual result. You may quibble that modern dictators are not kings, but that's a distinction without a difference. Take, for example, Beloved and Respected Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, who passed down his office to his selected son and heir, Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jung-Il, who now appears to be preparing his selected son and heir "Brilliant Comrade" Kim Jong-Un. Now, the hereditary principle is usually (though not necessarily) associated with monarchy, so does this not in effect make Kim Jong Il the "king" of North Korea?

Conversely, in many societies, kings and emperors were elected (even in ancient Rome, on rare occasion, the Senate got to vote on an Emperor), so does this not make such a king, in effect, merely "President for Life"?


Of course, Sark is about the size of a small U.S. town, so as a model for national governance, not much of an example for others.

Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL.

Apparently NOT!

Too funny!

Zarove-
Now that I understand where you are coming from, I have to say that even a neo feudalism is unlikely aside from world wide disaster! My guess, is that most people in the world simply don't want it. Furthermore, I don't believe that this time in history I personally want to live in a feudalistic society.Do not forget history tells of the good parts of feudal society and also the very ugly side as well. A permanent class system which condemned people to a certain legal statues without any hope of advancement! And do tell me, what makes a noble person? His birth family? Where he was born? Or how about the merits of his conduct and work?



"Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL." Hey,..he speaking his mind! Whats wrong with that? I applaud a person willing to politically speak his or her piece despite what "people think"

"Oh, my goodness! The medication cart has been through the forum again, hasn't it? LOL." Hey,..he speaking his mind! Whats wrong with that? I applaud a person willing to politically speak his or her piece despite what "people think"

The Flat Earth Society meeting will immediately follow in the crypt. All are welcome.

It amazes me the number of people who romanticize the past, without any clue as to the harshness and brutality that existed then. It wasn't all glorious buildings, great music, and splendid art. Life for the average person could be terrible - and generally was. It's easy to be anachronistic when you don't have to endure the reality.

You are wise indeed, byzanTN. One of the finest expositions of how people view history can be found in the Prologue of John Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy (all citations from the Penguin Paperback edition), which is a brilliant little essay on historiography and the dangers of anachronistic romanticization.

Point well taken! But I suppose none of us can learn anything from the age of chivalry! Right?

Anything good, that is.

The criticism of different forms of government hasn't changed much since the time of Plato and Aristotle. Each form has its advantages and disadvantages. Democracies naturally tend to erode into tyrannies, monarchies naturally tend to erode into oligarchies. Anyway, the more real (that can't be solved by fighting parties sunken in particularisms) problems there are to solve, the faster we are heading towards more monarchical forms of government, at least in Europe. The Romans weren't shy to choose a dictator when they were in trouble.

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Habsburgs are constitutionally forbidden from taking power back in Ausria.