Monarchy anyone? - Page 3

The time of the diaspora is in dispute, but it's not as long ago as 200k.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070011185812data_trunc_sys.shtml

On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

On September 15 2009 04:35 asdf2000 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. since when is it in a monarch's best interest to protect all of our rights and freedoms?

Since when does any Government do this? There has never been such a Government and never will be. This is why if you truly believe in Liberty then you cannot be for a State. You must be a nonarchist (Posited by Rothbard, or in other words an Anarcho-Capitalist). So, knowing this, then your choices boil down to one of Economics. This is where Monarchy excels over Democracy. You can also posit, that because a Monarch is alone in his decisions, that the burden falls on himself, therefore decisions that are derisive and work against the people will lose the support. Ultimately this loss of support means the end of the Monarchy (French Revo, Russian Revo, etc.). This is in his self-interest to not unduly and incrediously lose the support of his people. Even then, in the end whether incrementaly or not you end up having much less Liberty eventually.

I should ask this, since when has Democracy not raped your Liberty? (Remember, Freedom and Liberty are not the same. We are all naturally free to do as we please, unless we do not have the power to do so (Born with defects, etc.). Freedom merely means the act of consciousness. Liberty is what Classical Liberalism and Anarcho-Capitalism is all about, and what every person should seek.)

On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   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. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

umm this is not correct,the title tyrrant didn't have a good or bad ethical meaning,it just meant someone who had obtained power through unconventional means, men in power that were not aristocrats. The bad meaning came much later (I've never seen something about hollow animals or something like that O_o)

On September 15 2009 13:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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.

And today this is any different? We have had more wars under Democracy in such short periods than Monarchy. Let me give you historical examples in the past one hundred and 50 years based SOLELY on the US.

Mexican War
Spanish War
Native American Wars (These were many)
WWI
WWII
War of Southern Independance
Vietnam War
Korean War
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Granada

Now, you add in the CIA and it balloons to a massive amount of covert warfare. Bolivia, Chile, Iran, etc.

Now, if you can find me one example of a Monarchy who fought more wars within any 300 year period then I will educate myself further. Secondly, not all Monarchies existed in the Dark Ages. There were many even up until the 1800s and even some until the 1900s (Austria-Hungary for one).

Yes, Fuedalism creates a horrible standard of living, but Fuedalism is not Monarchy. Seperate the political institution from the economic institution (Even though they are connected, they are not one and the same). Mercantilism is one of the worst Economic Philosophies also, and one that is still widely practiced...

PS. We have no say in what Wars are fought today. Even though the majority are now against both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars we are still there and even increasing our presence in Afghanistan. Secondly, we are waging secret wars using the CIA, which we don't even know the full extent of.

On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   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. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

Monarchs are not appointed, and Monarchs pass their kingdoms down the family line. Greek Tyrants did not, and thus do not have the same self-interests. I'm not even sure why we are arguing what is worse than what, they are all abhorrent. Let us instead look at the past on our failures and move forward with better ideas founded on the backs of human history, philosophy, and economic philosophy/theory.

On September 15 2009 18:32 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote:   On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   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. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy. Monarchs are not appointed, and Monarchs pass their kingdoms down the family line. Greek Tyrants did not, and thus do not have the same self-interests. I'm not even sure why we are arguing what is worse than what, they are all abhorrent. Let us instead look at the past on our failures and move forward with better ideas founded on the backs of human history, philosophy, and economic philosophy/theory.

actually, greek tyrants attempted to pass their positions down their family lines, and this was often a significant reason for their downfall.. probably the most notable greek tyrants, Cypselus and Peisistratos (and these were "successes" - in many ways you can probably claim they both improved life for most of the inhabitants of their respective polises), were both succeeded by their sons. Cypselus' son was Periander - whom was later on used by aristotele as an example of the model "cruel tyrant".. Peisistratos' was followed by his sons Hippias and Hipparchus - and they initially tried to rule much like their father, but eventually paranoia of losing their power drove them into cruelty which eventually led to the murder of Hipparchus and the abolition of tyranny in athens (which instead led to the rise of democracy. )

most greek polises during that time were ruled either by an aristocracy (or monarchy), which sometimes became so bad that the lower ranks of the population appointed tyrants to solve the abuse they faced, these tyrants in turn tended to become as bad as what they had been put in place to fight off in the timespan of one or two generations..

I can see how your american background skewers your perception here, for several reasons
firstly usa is significantly less democratic than most western-european countries (money buys far more power and influence in usa than in europe, and your presidential elections and campaigns are likewise dictated by lobbies and money to a far greater degree than what is the case for europe. not that this is not a problem here, but there is something fundamentally wrong when a presidential election is greatly influenced based on the fund-raising of the candidates - which is obviously the case or it would not get as much attention.)

secondly because usa has never been a monarchy.
western europe has since the emergence of large-scale and developed democracy had one war. granted, this was a major one - but it was started by a dictatorship which allied with other dictatorships. (even if this dictatorship was initially semi-democratically elected)

post-WW2 and the emergence of democracy in all western european countries (with the exception of spain and portugal, which took a little longer), no western european country has been in war with another western european country.. there have been imperialistic wars waged by western countries since - most of them started by the usa, but also some started by great britain or france, largely to maintain some form of colonial pride or power / unwillingness to accept that their colonial period had ended.
but you need to realize how big of a difference this is compared to the previous state.. Europe was, from 1300 to 1814, pretty much in a state of perpetual war with occasional pauses caused by a balance of power. every time a monarch perceived an advantage above a neighbour or strategic opponent (for example with regards to colonies), they would wage war and the population would suffer.. ever since democracy has been installed, inter-democracy wars have virtually been absent.. you can't choose to interpret this in any other way than "democracy is better for peace than monarcy"..

democracy certainly has many notable flaws but so far the world has never seen a more stable form of government which wages less wars. if you compare usa with all their might and power today (or for the past 50 years) with monarchies of similar power, you will see that usa is considerably more peaceful. if you choose to compare the period in western europe the past 50 years with say, the period between 1814 and 1864, which with regards to western europe was a very peaceful period even if it was pre-democracy, you will also notice that this period had a much larger degree of imperialism and warfaring outside europe.

On September 15 2009 18:28 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote:   On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   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. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy. umm this is not correct,the title tyrrant didn't have a good or bad ethical meaning,it just meant someone who had obtained power through unconventional means, men in power that were not aristocrats. The bad meaning came much later (I've never seen something about hollow animals or something like that O_o)

ya actually my post was phrased wrongly in one area. they were _not_ legally appointed (but note that this was in a time period where discussing the legality of anything is optimistic at best, as laws were not even codified everywhere - and the laws that were codified would have been regarded as tyrranical by our standards today ) - but they did have the support of the majority of the population.
burning people alive in hollow animals was an example of how tyrants eventually got their bad reputation because you had one tyrant, cant remember his name, whom enjoyed torturing people that way.

http://www.blip.tv/file/2599144/

thats why I study computer science

Hi

moi

oui oui oui Je suis empereur

Lmao what dumb count made this post

Intelligent to me lol