Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Joecoolyo]

Who in their right mind would fight,
to take over Queen Elizabeth's birthright,
when all it would entail,
is eating a lot of quail,
and the occasional festival night?

 

[Snorrius]

im saying you're being wilfully dishonest (again) to use unstable nations that didn't form themselves as examples of a typical democracy

It is you who dishonestly cherry-pick some successful democracies and proclaim them as "typical".

I: democracy did not worked for many post-colonial nations
You: because colonialism
I: so if nation have gone through colonialism it should consider using something other?
You: no because you liar

This is ridiculous.

 

[Phrossack]

Almost any part of history will probably include Hitties dynasty and "War of Roses" but for some strange reason exclude recent period of history? And you probably imply non-monarchies during almost any part of history were less prone to "suffering constant civil wars, waging wars, getting invaded, and falling".

Well, better help us understand why monarchies are better at average in procuring higher Human Development Index than "democracies".

Monarchies have been around for thousands of years, so the last couple of decades only constitutes a tiny part of monarchist history, especially since monarchies are not as common as they used to be. The most recent conflict involving one was possibly the Nepalese Civil War, which only ended in 2006. And in 2001, Prince Dipendra of Nepal machine-gunned most of the royal family and killed himself. So much for stability.

Now, those countries still adhering to monarchism are largely Arab states. Of course they have higher HDIs; they got rich off oil extraction. Few if any European states are monarchies in anything but name.

 

[Snorrius]

Monarchies have been around for thousands of years, so the last couple of decades only constitutes a tiny part of monarchist history, especially since monarchies are not as common as they used to be.

Non-monarchies actually are also around here for quite time. And I already said: for any meaningful work with data only good-documented period of history fits. In principle, if you want to do some research then something from second part of 17th century or beginning of 18th century is already good enough (depending on the part of Europe).

The most recent conflict involving one was possibly the Nepalese Civil War, which only ended in 2006. And in 2001, Prince Dipendra of Nepal machine-gunned most of the royal family and killed himself. So much for stability.

So we have one problematic monarchical country. Okay. Now do the math and check how much democracies are plagued by conflicts like. Check Africa for a good start.

Now, those countries still adhering to monarchism are largely Arab states. Of course they have higher HDIs; they got rich off oil extraction.

Maybe, maybe not. I wonder what goes first. To exploit natural resource you need a competent government which also will want to invest profits back to country. Equatorial Guinea (non-monarchy), for example, has high per-capita profits from natural resources (comparable with Arab monarchies) but relatively low HDI. Some African nations have rich resource but are failing to organize extraction and/or procurer more or less fair contracts with foreign companies.

Few if any European states are monarchies in anything but name.

We discussed this already - this is a silly argument. If we say that constitutional monarchies are monarchies in anything but name then one can claim that presidential republics are republics in anything but name. And it still puzzles us why monarchies only in name still fare relatively better than other republics.

Monarchy is monarchy. It is not a rare word like "thalassocracy" which, I admit, worth some debate.

 

[Traitorfish]

If you want to estimate robustness of monarchy, i.e. ability to withstand to external and internal threats to ruling dynasty, you should probably compare average longevity of uninterrupted monarchy succession line with average longevity of uninterrupted (by coup d'Etats, civil wars, Maidans etc ) democratic succession. Check the Africa page I left link to. After de-colonization and installing there carbon-copy democracies it is a string of never-ending civil wars and coup d'etats.

I'm an anarchist, mate. I've no investment in the stability of republics any more than monarchies. I'm not saying that your position is simply incorrect, but that it is absurd. It defies empirical testing, because it is nose-to-tail bonkers.

 

[Snorrius]

I'm an anarchist, mate. I've no investment in the stability of republics any more than monarchies. I'm not saying that your position is simply incorrect, but that it is absurd. It defies empirical testing, because it is nose-to-tail bonkers.

Absurd is to hear about "empirical testing" from anarchist. Monarchy vs republic debate at least have empirical data which can be analyzed, interpreted and discussed while anarchists are pure pipe dreamers.

Anarchist blaming opponents for the lack of empirical testing. This is ridiculous.

 

[Cutlass]

Plus there was that whole 1914-1918 business, which ended with several major monarchies tearing themselves apart.

No cloud without a silver lining.

 

[Cutlass]

pointing out failures of monarchies does not mean democracy is right.

Our goal is not to point out failures of democracy (yet). For now, we are just finding out why monarchy seems to be superior according to Human Development Index.

And since you've demonstrated that they are, in fact, inferior in all regards, how's that working out for you?

 

[Senethro]

Absurd is to hear about "empirical testing" from anarchist. Monarchy vs republic debate at least have empirical data which can be analyzed, interpreted and discussed while anarchists are pure pipe dreamers.

Anarchist blaming opponents for the lack of empirical testing. This is ridiculous.

And guess what? You're in exactly the same boat as them and the college communists. Among the various topics you've failed to address is what method, whether by revolution or referendum, you could convert current democracies into monarchies.

Let me give you a hint - you can argue (poorly) about the relative violence in monarchies vs. democracy, but theres no question that you're taking my political rights without violence. This I guarantee.

 

[Snorrius]

Let me give you a hint - you can argue (poorly) about the relative violence in monarchies vs. democracy, but theres no question that you're taking my political rights without violence. This I guarantee.

You are from USA?

 

[Traitorfish]

Absurd is to hear about "empirical testing" from anarchist. Monarchy vs republic debate at least have empirical data which can be analyzed, interpreted and discussed while anarchists are pure pipe dreamers.

Anarchist blaming opponents for the lack of empirical testing. This is ridiculous.

Perhaps I am ridiculous. But that's hardly proof that you are not.

 

[Tahuti]

Let me give you a hint - you can argue (poorly) about the relative violence in monarchies vs. democracy, but theres no question that you're taking my political rights without violence. This I guarantee.

Moderator Action: Spam
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Senethro]

The dude in that picture is very silly, but not sillier than the notion that some git in a gold hat is better suited to making decisions than the next man.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Senethro is a deranged reactionary"; the highest compliment that Kaiserguard can extend?

 

[Tahuti]

"Senethro is a deranged reactionary"; the highest compliment that Kaiserguard can extend?

Well, if you are a reactionary, you'd better be a good one. A gun toting quasi-Libertarian American reactionary isn't really to my liking.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Observation from a side:

Pro-Monarchists VS Pro-Democracy (for simplicity)

1. M: HDI lists a lot of monarchies at the top of the list, there must be a correlation, let's discuss what it is exactly.
2. D: Ridiculous, cause and effect, correlation, wrong etc. That it happens to have monarchy doesn't have anything to do with high HDI. Some arguments (fair and reasonable)
3. M: Democracies had civil wars etc. too. Look at wars so far.
4. D: Ridiculous. Look at all the wars and conflicts of the ENTIRE history of mankind. confused: What about 2?)

 

[Samson]

And it still puzzles us why monarchies only in name still fare relatively better than other republics.

This point has been made before in this thread, but I shall try and put it into my words in case it makes it clearer.

To be a "monarchy only in name" you need to have A) Existed in a reasonably stable state from the period in history where it was not insane to suggest that one "random" family should be rule a state in perpetuity to date. B) Gone through a period of liberalisation / democratisation that has taken the state from a "real" monarchy to a monarchy only in name.

It seems reasonable, actually to me it seems obvious, to say that countries that have avoided recent instability that removes a monarchy (be that external colonisation or internal bloody revolution) AND have to go through a process of liberalisation / democratisation are likely to be more economically successful than countries that have not. To compare these groups, and say that because the current economic and political structures look correlated then the causation must be that monarchies cause economic success seems to be getting the "correlation = causation" argument as wrong as possible, and the is a lot of competion for that accolade

 

[Gori the Grey]

To elaborate a little on what Samson said:

If we say that constitutional monarchies are monarchies in name only then one can claim that presidential republics are republics in name only. And it still puzzles us why monarchies only in name still fare relatively better than other republics.

Monarchy is monarchy.

I don't understand the phrase "in anything but name." For me, the phrase is "in name only," as you later go on to say, so I’ve altered your quote slightly. See, there's a thing, monarchy, which is a kind of government in which decisions are made by one person. And then there's a name, "constitutional monarchy," which, sure enough, has the word “monarchy” in it, but means that (although a particular nation has retained a figurehead monarch from the time when it was actually ruled by a single person), the (democratic) constitution limits that monarch’s powers, usually to the purely symbolic.

So, if you look, for example, at the Wiki entry on "Democracy," you'll learn that "constitutional monarchies" are a sub-category of democracy—even though they don’t have the word “democracy” anywhere in the phrase!

Language can be funny that way. You may still “mouse over” a particular section of a website, even though you’re doing so on a laptop that has a touch-pad rather than a mouse, and even though your desktop’s pointing device was never a mouse in the first place!

Moreover, you'll learn that countries are regarded as having realized democracy more or less fully.

The following countries or regions are categorised by the Democracy Index 2012 as (the top ten in the category of) Full democracy:

Norway
Sweden
Iceland
Denmark
New Zealand
Australia
Switzerland
Canada
Finland
Netherlands

Now here again are the top ten from the HDI.

Norway
Australia
Switzerland
Netherlands
United States
Germany
New Zealand
Canada
Singapore
Denmark

Do you notice anything?

A question like “Should a hypothetical African country simply be advised to adopt a democratic form of government, given that democracies have often fared poorly in that region?” could be an interesting question. (The answer would still be “yes,” but the question would be interesting.)

But your insistence that because something has the word monarchy in its name it is in any meaningful sense a monarchical form of government that might be recommend to this African country, that insistence, whether simple-minded or disingenuous (I suspect the latter), interferes with raising those more interesting questions.

Unless you also mean to set a cheese trap to catch your computer’s pointing device.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I thought disingenuous at first. After nine pages of dedicated nonsense I'm no longer sure.

 

[warpus]

Perhaps what we don't need are monarchies - but rather democracies who have a long and proud history of being monarchies in teh past. You know, countries that hold onto their kings and queens, for whatever reason. Also, they need to be first world western democracies.

The OP's premise is as well thought out as the book of Genesis.

Having said that, I hope the Canadian Queen abdicates and we get a president.