Monarchy anyone? - Page 2

On September 14 2009 20:04 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth. The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only. I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power.

Slavery is economically inferior, so no Monarch in today's age would ever use such a system. You have to feed, cloth, and provide for them healthcare where as with a Machine all you need is fuel and someone to do maintenance / run the machine. It is important to use economic realities in your arguements. Not only that, slavery is used for hard labor and anything that takes education (Such as every modern Economy) would falter if slavery was introduced. This is why pretty much all slavery was phased on during and after the Industrial Revolution, because it is not economically feasible. Morally, it is an abomination and rapes Natural Law.

Remember, the arguement here is which is better Monarchy or Democracy. If I had a gun to my head and had to choose, it wouldn't be a hard choice at all; Monarchy.

Text:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed
http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp

Audio:
http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3923


Remember, it's much easier to overthrow one person, than it is to overthrow the majority. The majority have little fear. The Monarch has much to fear.

im related to Houdini

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to?

So you're saying its accidental that most of the presidents are directly related to each other by blood? (plus being rich) In the world of billlions of people, i dont think so. Even if you go up to 20 000 that is still a very tiny number.

-----------------------------
I have another question. Anarchy, does anyone have any good videos to watch documentaries about it or how it works. Cos I have heard that anarchy is good but feel like throughout the school I have been brainwashed to think that it sucks. Got any links I can educate myself on?

Another topic is JFK assasination. I have seen lines drawn that JFK assasination was linked to government overthrowing. JFK was not part of the ruling "family" at teh time, so he was killed, along with most of his family. So thats like mafia wars. But Id like to know more on that topic.

On September 14 2009 20:26 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 20:04 Baal wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth. The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only. I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power. Slavery is economically inferior, so no Monarch in today's age would ever use such a system. You have to feed, cloth, and provide for them healthcare where as with a Machine all you need is fuel and someone to do maintenance / run the machine. It is important to use economic realities in your arguements. Not only that, slavery is used for hard labor and anything that takes education (Such as every modern Economy) would falter if slavery was introduced. This is why pretty much all slavery was phased on during and after the Industrial Revolution, because it is not economically feasible. Morally, it is an abomination and rapes Natural Law. Remember, the arguement here is which is better Monarchy or Democracy. If I had a gun to my head and had to choose, it wouldn't be a hard choice at all; Monarchy. Text: Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp Audio: http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3923 Remember, it's much easier to overthrow one person, than it is to overthrow the majority. The majority have little fear. The Monarch has much to fear.

But on the current age is very hard to overthrow anything and what monarchs in history were just and cared about the people, very very few the overwhelming majority were cruel tyrants that werent even aware of their own wickedness.

Also the problem with democracy is not that the majority rules, but that the majority are retards and easily manipulated by the evil democratic government, well educated people wouldnt do that mistake

The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors.

On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors.

well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing.

I got this straight out of wikipedia.

Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

On September 14 2009 22:23 SfydjkLm wrote: Show nested quote + I got this straight out of wikipedia. Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

i know wikipedia sucks. But for such simple info as ancestry i dont think it can be that bad.

On September 14 2009 22:13 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors. well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing.

Hobbes assertion would be it doesn't really matter. The monarch serves his own self interest. Since his interest lies in maintaining order and stability while growing his wealth and prosperity (Which can only be done by growing that of his empire) by following his self interest rationally and effectively the self interest of the populace is served. This actually makes a lot of sense right up untill the point you relize few people have the ability to relize how to serve there long term intererests best let alone the intellect and discipline to act on it. I assert the problem lies not in corruption but in a lack of intellect, reason, and patience.

On September 14 2009 22:46 Narious wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 22:13 Baal wrote:   On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors. well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing. Hobbes assertion would be it doesn't really matter. The monarch serves his own self interest. Since his interest lies in maintaining order and stability while growing his wealth and prosperity (Which can only be done by growing that of his empire) by following his self interest rationally and effectively the self interest of the populace is served. This actually makes a lot of sense right up untill the point you relize few people have the ability to relize how to serve there long term intererests best let alone the intellect and discipline to act on it. I assert the problem lies not in corruption but in a lack of intellect, reason, and patience.

yes this is also a strong point, incompetence, usually democracy should choose a competent leader but well, didnt Bush Jr were president of USA?.

Also our main disagreement here is that i dont think the interests of the monarchy are directly the same as the people's interest, like the monarchy wants their own wealth and they over-taxate and other ridiculous stuff, also its not just incompetence that leads to a bad kingdom, its people who are not that concerned of their heritage, and will rake the max they can for themselves and mostly their children but not for 10 generations after.

Theres a Churchill quote I can't find but its pretty funny with respect to democracy. Something along the lines of "the greatest problem with democracy is the incompetent people who get to vote"

"Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now we have to think." Saw this quote while I was trying to find the exact wording of the other one, thought it was funny.

It is difficult to imagine what a perfect system of government would look like. Democracy isn't perfect but it seems to be the best thing we've tried so far. It also works better in countries that have more than just two diametrically opposed parties. An example would be that Canada currently has 4 major parties and a 5th emerging. A good portion of the time there is a minority government and people are forced to work together to get things done. Monarchy has its incentives, but it has plenty of downsides just as Democracy does. There will probably never be a perfect form of government but there are certainly plenty of people working on trying to make what we use better.

One option with democracy might be to allow people to participate in extensive education about the current political issues facing the nation in the months leading up to an election. As a result of taking the time to educate yourself on the important issues your vote is worth more maybe counts as two, three, four who knows. Not really a well thought out thing to add to the democracy we already have but it's kind of a neat idea to toss around. It's not exclusive in that its available to everyone and it would allow those who were more educated about political issues to have their vote count for more.

Another thing you might add is that in order to be allowed to vote you have to take a non-biased online/phone questionnaire and get 100% of the questions correct. The questions would be about the current issues facing the country and each parties stance toward those issues. You are allowed to take the questionnaire as many times as you want and it tells you which ones you got wrong. It kind of forces people to know exactly what each party represents before being allowed to vote without excluding anyone from voting except those who are too lazy to educate themselves about the issues.

On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

since when is it in a monarch's best interest to protect all of our rights and freedoms?

I fail to see how Celtic Ireland is a historical example of Anarchy(or -ism or w/e).

On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least

in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe"

it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that.

god save the queen!

what the hell aegraen are you for real

europe during the age of monarchy was a shithole with constant wars and horrible standard of living for a vast majority of the population
while the standard of living can be attributed to it having been a different time and age - it wouldn't have been any better in a democracy, the constant wars could be (should be) directly attributed to the fact that the people had no say.

Every human... no wait, EVERY EXISTING ORGANISM ON EARTH...

Is your cousin.

Yes, when you took a shower this morning (those of you who do not play WoW) you killed trillions of your bacterial relatives.

Fifty thousand years ago, all your ancestors lived in Africa. As it turns out, we ALL have a birth certificate from Kenya.

On September 14 2009 22:23 SfydjkLm wrote: Show nested quote + I got this straight out of wikipedia. Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

Ah, the Wikipedia fallacy. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", or "You quoted Wikipedia so I get to ignore the content of your argument."

Obama got millions of bros

On September 15 2009 13:53 vltava wrote: Every human... no wait, EVERY EXISTING ORGANISM ON EARTH... Is your cousin. Yes, when you took a shower this morning (those of you who do not play WoW) you killed trillions of your bacterial relatives. Fifty thousand years ago, all your ancestors lived in Africa. As it turns out, we ALL have a birth certificate from Kenya.

50thousand?

more like 200-400k