Monarchy Rule? Poll (no tax enclosed)
Double Retired
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,217
Location: U.S.A. (Mid-Atlantic)
11 Apr 2021, 11:54 am
Redd_Kross wrote:
The poll question contains two parts, which one would normally expect to be answered with different answers. So having standalone "Yes" and "No" answer options doesn't make sense.
I'd answer "No" and "Yes" respectively.
Boolean Algebra!! I'd answer "No" and "Yes" respectively.
I studied that in school!XIs monarchy rule the best form of rule or Yis [monarchy] out of date
The answer is True (Yes) if either X or Y is TRUE! I voted Yes!
I'm assuming that is an inclusive "or". If it is an exclusive "or" I'd have to think about it some more.
_________________
When diagnosed I bought champagne!
I finally knew why people were strange.
11 Apr 2021, 12:39 pm
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
Last edited by Dylanperr on 11 Apr 2021, 12:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
11 Apr 2021, 12:47 pm
KT67 wrote:
Became out of date the minute England invaded Ireland...
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Serf like labor is used just about everywhere nowadays. Removing monarchy didnt get rid of it, Coachella Valley farm workers in the US are a perfect example and its probably even worse than European serfdom because its in the baking hot desert. Saying royalty is for royals only is like saying democracy/republicanism is only for politicians.
11 Apr 2021, 12:59 pm
GGPViper wrote:
Absolutist Monarchy is theoretically the most efficient form of government, as an all-knowing and benevolent dictator can implement the best possible policy without having to make inefficient concessions to various other factions.
However, all-knowing and benevolent dictators are less common than one might think. Instead we get:
- Qin Er Shi, Emperor of China, whose shenanigans destroyed the Qin dynasty in only 3 years
- Caligula, Emperor of Rome, whose shenanigans got him assassinated by his own bodyguards
- Wilhelm II, Kaiser of Germany, whose shenanigans led to a crushing defeat for Germany in WWI
- Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, whose shenanigans led to the Thirty Years' War
- King Leopold II, King of Belgium, whose shenanigans killed millions of people in the Congo Free State
... and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
However, all-knowing and benevolent dictators are less common than one might think. Instead we get:
- Qin Er Shi, Emperor of China, whose shenanigans destroyed the Qin dynasty in only 3 years
- Caligula, Emperor of Rome, whose shenanigans got him assassinated by his own bodyguards
- Wilhelm II, Kaiser of Germany, whose shenanigans led to a crushing defeat for Germany in WWI
- Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, whose shenanigans led to the Thirty Years' War
- King Leopold II, King of Belgium, whose shenanigans killed millions of people in the Congo Free State
... and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
Wilhelm II of Germany wasnt an absolutist and he did to a certain extent try to avert WW1. It was really the change of German foreign policy which many ministers and much of the German people heavily supported, the Kaiser did to a certain extent to. Another problem in history is that there were just too much 18 year olds with guns shooting each other when they could of did what people did during prohibition, not follow the leader.
11 Apr 2021, 7:19 pm
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
11 Apr 2021, 10:52 pm
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
12 Apr 2021, 11:01 am
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
If what you conclude from that is that ideologies and systems of government don't matter than you're still assuming that all that matters is the virtue of individual leaders. A nation's system of government and the ideology of its ruling class as a whole (not just the leader) have huge impacts on what the government does. No one thinks any one form of government would guarantee that a leader is good (some think the right ideology would and they're wrong, but you don't have to go that far to think ideology matters). Not all ideologies share the same goals; the morality of leaders can't be judged independently of ideology. When pre-20th century leaders are judged by historians, they're usually ignoring morality and evaluating how good leaders were at what they were trying to do. A lot of kings that are considered "great" didn't improve life for most of their subjects in any meaningful way; they were just good at conquering land and enriching themselves and their cronies. Even when controlling for technology, most people are better off in liberal democracies with mediocre leaders than their ancestors were under medieval kings that were good at conquering.
12 Apr 2021, 11:05 am
Dylanperr wrote:
KT67 wrote:
Became out of date the minute England invaded Ireland...
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Serf like labor is used just about everywhere nowadays. Removing monarchy didnt get rid of it, Coachella Valley farm workers in the US are a perfect example and its probably even worse than European serfdom because its in the baking hot desert. Saying royalty is for royals only is like saying democracy/republicanism is only for politicians.
Not really.
I know that it seems that way because the rich get richer and the average person doesn't get elected.
But in theory? Yes they can.
And you get a choice. Even if it was a choice between Starmer and Johnson, I'd rather have a choice who was head of state.
There is no superior family.
_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him
12 Apr 2021, 12:13 pm
KT67 wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
KT67 wrote:
Became out of date the minute England invaded Ireland...
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...
So that makes it ok lol.
Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.
Serf like labor is used just about everywhere nowadays. Removing monarchy didnt get rid of it, Coachella Valley farm workers in the US are a perfect example and its probably even worse than European serfdom because its in the baking hot desert. Saying royalty is for royals only is like saying democracy/republicanism is only for politicians.
Not really.
I know that it seems that way because the rich get richer and the average person doesn't get elected.
But in theory? Yes they can.
And you get a choice. Even if it was a choice between Starmer and Johnson, I'd rather have a choice who was head of state.
There is no superior family.
You don't really get a choice when the two people who aren't good. No matter what form of government is in power it will be corrupt at some point. Peasants weren't any better when it came to family values than any of their overlords, they still fought their cousins like anyone else did. I suggest you get your google machine and type in violence against women in 19th century Russia and you would know what I am talking about.
12 Apr 2021, 12:35 pm
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
If what you conclude from that is that ideologies and systems of government don't matter than you're still assuming that all that matters is the virtue of individual leaders. A nation's system of government and the ideology of its ruling class as a whole (not just the leader) have huge impacts on what the government does. No one thinks any one form of government would guarantee that a leader is good (some think the right ideology would and they're wrong, but you don't have to go that far to think ideology matters). Not all ideologies share the same goals; the morality of leaders can't be judged independently of ideology. When pre-20th century leaders are judged by historians, they're usually ignoring morality and evaluating how good leaders were at what they were trying to do. A lot of kings that are considered "great" didn't improve life for most of their subjects in any meaningful way; they were just good at conquering land and enriching themselves and their cronies. Even when controlling for technology, most people are better off in liberal democracies with mediocre leaders than their ancestors were under medieval kings that were good at conquering.
People are better off nowadays because of better advancements in technology and economic opportunity, heck your average joe lives a far better life than any medieval king, and you can say the same thing about "great" elected politicians as well. Your local government is far more important and effects your daily life far more than any federal government led by a monarch or a president and most of the stuff the federal government does little to effect our daily lives. No matter the ideology, corruption will still exist in any form of government, every form of government has its problems. Whether if the US is led by democrats or republicans they both can be really corrupt. Sure ideology is important, but individual leaders are even more so because they are the ones making the policies, and there are people who like to call themselves a certain ideology (democrat, republican, monarchist, etc) but in reality they are just selfish pricks more than anything else.
12 Apr 2021, 2:47 pm
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
If what you conclude from that is that ideologies and systems of government don't matter than you're still assuming that all that matters is the virtue of individual leaders. A nation's system of government and the ideology of its ruling class as a whole (not just the leader) have huge impacts on what the government does. No one thinks any one form of government would guarantee that a leader is good (some think the right ideology would and they're wrong, but you don't have to go that far to think ideology matters). Not all ideologies share the same goals; the morality of leaders can't be judged independently of ideology. When pre-20th century leaders are judged by historians, they're usually ignoring morality and evaluating how good leaders were at what they were trying to do. A lot of kings that are considered "great" didn't improve life for most of their subjects in any meaningful way; they were just good at conquering land and enriching themselves and their cronies. Even when controlling for technology, most people are better off in liberal democracies with mediocre leaders than their ancestors were under medieval kings that were good at conquering.
People are better off nowadays because of better advancements in technology and economic opportunity, heck your average joe lives a far better life than any medieval king, and you can say the same thing about "great" elected politicians as well. Your local government is far more important and effects your daily life far more than any federal government led by a monarch or a president and most of the stuff the federal government does little to effect our daily lives. No matter the ideology, corruption will still exist in any form of government, every form of government has its problems. Whether if the US is led by democrats or republicans they both can be really corrupt. Sure ideology is important, but individual leaders are even more so because they are the ones making the policies, and there are people who like to call themselves a certain ideology (democrat, republican, monarchist, etc) but in reality they are just selfish pricks more than anything else.
I never said corruption could be 100% eliminated. You're the one who said that that ALL the failures of government can be blamed on individual corruption. All I'm saying is that ideologies and systems of government also matter. If you're now conceding that those things are also important then I'm not sure what your point is.
12 Apr 2021, 3:47 pm
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
If what you conclude from that is that ideologies and systems of government don't matter than you're still assuming that all that matters is the virtue of individual leaders. A nation's system of government and the ideology of its ruling class as a whole (not just the leader) have huge impacts on what the government does. No one thinks any one form of government would guarantee that a leader is good (some think the right ideology would and they're wrong, but you don't have to go that far to think ideology matters). Not all ideologies share the same goals; the morality of leaders can't be judged independently of ideology. When pre-20th century leaders are judged by historians, they're usually ignoring morality and evaluating how good leaders were at what they were trying to do. A lot of kings that are considered "great" didn't improve life for most of their subjects in any meaningful way; they were just good at conquering land and enriching themselves and their cronies. Even when controlling for technology, most people are better off in liberal democracies with mediocre leaders than their ancestors were under medieval kings that were good at conquering.
People are better off nowadays because of better advancements in technology and economic opportunity, heck your average joe lives a far better life than any medieval king, and you can say the same thing about "great" elected politicians as well. Your local government is far more important and effects your daily life far more than any federal government led by a monarch or a president and most of the stuff the federal government does little to effect our daily lives. No matter the ideology, corruption will still exist in any form of government, every form of government has its problems. Whether if the US is led by democrats or republicans they both can be really corrupt. Sure ideology is important, but individual leaders are even more so because they are the ones making the policies, and there are people who like to call themselves a certain ideology (democrat, republican, monarchist, etc) but in reality they are just selfish pricks more than anything else.
I never said corruption could be 100% eliminated. You're the one who said that that ALL the failures of government can be blamed on individual corruption. All I'm saying is that ideologies and systems of government also matter. If you're now conceding that those things are also important then I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes systems of government definately can matter for example a leader in a democracy can't wield as much power as that in a totalitarian regime because of the checks and balances involved. You actually made a good point about that but I (myself) for the most part believe it is due to selfish human tendecies that drive political corruption. Lets end the argument/debate.
13 Apr 2021, 3:08 pm
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
Dylanperr wrote:
With the exception of totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that are so evil and extreme to the point that no one else likely would do it if they didnt. I blame all of the failures of government on human behaviour rather than any ideology or form of government.
You have a very "great man" theory of history. If you study economic or social history you will probably change your mind. In non-totalitarian countries the structure of the government affects daily life a lot more than the whims of individual rulers. If totalitarian rulers are an exception because in other cases whoever would have been in charge instead would have acted the same, wouldn't that imply that ideology and form of government are more impactful than individuals?
Im talking about what makes individual politicians corrupt and some people are just terrible people rather than any form of government. There were both amazing and terrible, elected politicians and monarchs out there. Yes that would mean totalitarianism would be an exception but again the people who are passing bills and making policies are human beings.
If what you conclude from that is that ideologies and systems of government don't matter than you're still assuming that all that matters is the virtue of individual leaders. A nation's system of government and the ideology of its ruling class as a whole (not just the leader) have huge impacts on what the government does. No one thinks any one form of government would guarantee that a leader is good (some think the right ideology would and they're wrong, but you don't have to go that far to think ideology matters). Not all ideologies share the same goals; the morality of leaders can't be judged independently of ideology. When pre-20th century leaders are judged by historians, they're usually ignoring morality and evaluating how good leaders were at what they were trying to do. A lot of kings that are considered "great" didn't improve life for most of their subjects in any meaningful way; they were just good at conquering land and enriching themselves and their cronies. Even when controlling for technology, most people are better off in liberal democracies with mediocre leaders than their ancestors were under medieval kings that were good at conquering.
People are better off nowadays because of better advancements in technology and economic opportunity, heck your average joe lives a far better life than any medieval king, and you can say the same thing about "great" elected politicians as well. Your local government is far more important and effects your daily life far more than any federal government led by a monarch or a president and most of the stuff the federal government does little to effect our daily lives. No matter the ideology, corruption will still exist in any form of government, every form of government has its problems. Whether if the US is led by democrats or republicans they both can be really corrupt. Sure ideology is important, but individual leaders are even more so because they are the ones making the policies, and there are people who like to call themselves a certain ideology (democrat, republican, monarchist, etc) but in reality they are just selfish pricks more than anything else.
I never said corruption could be 100% eliminated. You're the one who said that that ALL the failures of government can be blamed on individual corruption. All I'm saying is that ideologies and systems of government also matter. If you're now conceding that those things are also important then I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes systems of government definately can matter for example a leader in a democracy can't wield as much power as that in a totalitarian regime because of the checks and balances involved. You actually made a good point about that but I (myself) for the most part believe it is due to selfish human tendecies that drive political corruption. Lets end the argument/debate.
Every leader like every human being has their strong points and weak points, this goes for medieval monarchs as well, some are better at the battlefield and acquiring land, while others are better at other stuff. Being a good leader is far more than just improving the lives of your subjects and most of the stuff that improved our lives didn't come from any leader or government it came from advances in the economy and technology. I will end the argument/debate here, that is doesn't go too far.
