Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,496
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 574
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
The advantage of a ceremonial head of state is two-fold.
1. A benign head of state is generally an asset it makes it easier to think of "the people" and "the government" as two different entities, especially in international matters. The UK has messed its britches many times since WWII, sometimes in league with us, sometimes acting independently but having QE2 has helped calm the waters.
2. Having a head of state with rare case "nuclear" powers. The Queen has not exercised her powers though is known for asking pointed questions of the prime minister when things begin galloping along. The most famous case was the Governor-General of Australia who became frustrated that the government was facing shut-down as a political ploy and he broke the deadlock by dismissing the prime minister. The only time in 117 years the power has been exercised.

All that said, I can't imagine such a system in the US.
12-31-2017 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 9,998
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 401
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
(12-29-2017 09:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think, due to many of Habsburg's arguments, that a monarchy will yield the best potential result. A republic will never produce someone that can accomplish what Alfred the Great, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, or Charlemagne did because of the restraints of checks and balances and the political special interest forces needed to maintain power. On the other hand, it will also yield the worst potential result. A republic will never produce a Caligula, King John, Philip II, Nero, or Ivan the Terrible due to the same restraints.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Democracy/Republics trim the extremes for overall benefits to a society. I'd argue that in addition to that, the downside risk to having monumental failures is significantly lower in a democracy/republic than a monarchy. IMHO, the risk of getting a rotten ruler outweighs any benefit that a truly gifted ruler can give you. The analogy of gov't vs economy is valid. You probably believe that an economic system that is largely capitalistic is much better than a command economy. The same would be the case for governing systems. Given your examples of great vs terrible monarchs/emperors - my analogy to economics holds because all of your examples are of rulers not affiliated with a constitutional monarchy (at least an entity with a strong constitution).
01-02-2018 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 52,691
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 917
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
(01-02-2018 11:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(12-29-2017 09:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think, due to many of Habsburg's arguments, that a monarchy will yield the best potential result. A republic will never produce someone that can accomplish what Alfred the Great, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, or Charlemagne did because of the restraints of checks and balances and the political special interest forces needed to maintain power. On the other hand, it will also yield the worst potential result. A republic will never produce a Caligula, King John, Philip II, Nero, or Ivan the Terrible due to the same restraints.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Democracy/Republics trim the extremes for overall benefits to a society. I'd argue that in addition to that, the downside risk to having monumental failures is significantly lower in a democracy/republic than a monarchy. IMHO, the risk of getting a rotten ruler outweighs any benefit that a truly gifted ruler can give you. The analogy of gov't vs economy is valid. You probably believe that an economic system that is largely capitalistic is much better than a command economy. The same would be the case for governing systems. Given your examples of great vs terrible monarchs/emperors - my analogy to economics holds because all of your examples are of rulers not affiliated with a constitutional monarchy (at least an entity with a strong constitution).

I worry that the danger we are now facing is that both major parties are becoming so polarized that a situation where either one controls the white house and both houses of congress could become much closer to the monarchy in terms of failure risk. The only time we have truly had that was Obama, from the time that Al Franken was seated to give the democrats 60 senators until Teddy Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown to reduce that to 59. I still think a factor in Brown's election was some level of fear among some Massachusetts voters that total one-party control was bad, even if one agreed with the party in control.

We don't have that with Trump because the republican majority in senate is way too slim, and got slimmer with the Roy Moore debacle. It seems more likely that the result will be gridlock than extremism. But when both parties are full of bad ideas, I kind of like gridlock.

I like Gorsuch and I like making corporate tax rates competitive with the rest of the world. I'm not a big fan of the rest of Trump's agenda, nor of the religious right's. So I don't know that a lot will happen that would please me. I've laid out the rest of what I'd like to see a number of times. I just don't see us going there under either party, nor under a compromise between the two (if that is even possible).
01-02-2018 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'√Čtoile du Nord
*

Posts: 16,454
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 720
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #14
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
Monarchy: God delegated His powers to the king, who has the right to do anything he pleases. Residents have no rights, only privileges specifically granted to them by the king.

(Representative) Republic: United States of America in 1776 = all rights and powers to The People; the government has no rights and only the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Hobbes thought mankind was totally self-interested which made them rotten to each other and only tamed by the shackles of government and religion. Free us from those shackles and life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. He wanted a strong, moral government with a religious basis, like English monarchy. But Mills thought government power should be limited to preventing harm to others. He wanted strictly a limited government doing nothing but keep the peace, a utilitarian government without any moral or religious basis for its laws.

I am Hobbsian at heart about the state of man and support a strong moral government, which is why I struggle with some of the more libertarian arguments about the size and responsibility of government, but I am an atheist so I have no love lost to the idea of a religious government. I wish there was a Hobbes-Mills philosophy.......

Regardless, what I do know is that the people who are interested in expanding the franchise or government, of which a Monarchy certainly would, are not interested in better government or more representative government, they are interested in power. They want to impose their will and their choices on others. That is all they care about. That is why a representative (Republic) government is so important.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 03:04 PM by Lord Stanley.)
01-02-2018 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,496
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 574
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
(01-02-2018 02:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Monarchy: God delegated His powers to the king, who has the right to do anything he pleases. Residents have no rights, only privileges specifically granted to them by the king.

(Representative) Republic: United States of America in 1776 = all rights and powers to The People; the government has no rights and only the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

Hobbes thought mankind was totally self-interested which made them rotten to each other and only tamed by the shackles of government and religion. Free us from those shackles and life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. He wanted a strong, moral government with a religious basis, like English monarchy. But Mills thought government power should be limited to preventing harm to others. He wanted strictly a limited government doing nothing but keep the peace, a utilitarian government without any moral or religious basis for its laws.

I am Hobbsian at heart about the state of man and support a strong moral government, which is why I struggle with some of the more libertarian arguments about the size and responsibility of government, but I am an atheist so I have no love lost to the idea of a religious government. I wish there was a Hobbes-Mills philosophy.......

Regardless, what I do know is that the people who are interested in expanding the franchise or government, of which a Monarchy certainly would, are not interested in better government or more representative government, they are interested in power. They want to impose their will and their choices on others. That is all they care about. That is why a representative (Republic) government is so important.

I can't imagine having a consistently good outcome in a "real" monarchy. Sooner or later the genetic lottery is going to throw a turd on the table.
The UK and Commonwealth nations have a good system where the monarch or governor-general is just a safety valve if things go terribly wrong.
01-02-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,339
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 53
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Monarchy or Republic: A Rational Debate
Is this thread about Saudi Arabia model vs the Iranian model?
01-02-2018 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.