It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Monarchy Is Superior To Democracy

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by UMayBRite!
 


Hoppe isn't talking about modern "monarchies" which aren't really "monarchs" in the sense that Hoppe is referring to.

If you read that lecture snippet I posted from the KU professor, you'll get a better sense to what Hoppe is referring.

We need to make a distinction here between "real" monarchs and national monarchs.



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
For the Russians a monarchy was living hell for a long time.

A big part of history the Russian People usually lead a nomadic ife.
Until one of the Tsars or a Tsarina said the people come with the and and they are not alowed to leave it. So the nobles always had a workforce.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Do most monarch's stake a claim to rule because of lineage from King David, or Solomon, or Jesus, or some of those other bible characters?

Who gives a monarch his/her power? Who bestows the crown?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
i love how you speak of overthrowing as if its some casual option.

all of that sounds well and good if you have the ability to overthrow them (or just walk away and join some other dictator more to your liking)

the problem is monarchs/dictators tend to spend all their time and energy consolidating power and ensuring their subjects do not even have the ability to overthrow them.

with a monarchy, your subject to the morality of the dictator, so if he one day decides to take his subjects back to the dark ages, theres no official way out.

even simply trying to organize a resistance to overthrow can become damning.

the monarchy system leaves society open to being completely hijacked, more so than a democracy, because in a democracy theres always an official way out. in a democracy the system is much larger therefore much harder to completely hijack.

everything your saying only apply to SOME nations in our current times. but what about places like NK, cuba, etc....

or how about Europe for the majority of its existence...it may seem like times have changed and that may be true, but the system has not and it can revert back to king luis style at any given moment, and then everybody is screwed.

tell me exactly how england would overthrow their current monarchs if they so decided right now? its not even an option their rulers have such a tight grip on society. and what would they use, pitchforks??? most monarchs dont even allow weapons for this very reason.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerMan
 


1. Its doubtful you've read all the relevant posts before commenting.

2. Its clear you don't know the actual history of revolt in the middle ages.

Tax and political revolts were common during the middle ages and the power of monarchs was limited in scope by a variety of mechanisms.

What Hoppe says is correct.

Cohn cites 142 cases of tax revolts alone.
www.scribd.com...



[edit on 6-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
so basicly your only proof of successful revolts are from nearly 1000 years ago?

wow what a great example. i wonder how they dealt with the cctv systems, nukes, and tactical police forces. wonder what type of pitchfork they used to fight off the armored personel carriors, and fully automatic assault rifles.

and no i hadnt read the thread as i was only addressing the original post. had i been addressing any other comments you would have seen a "quote from" or "Reply to".

why dont you provide me of an example of a modern day revolt that worked out better than a democratic removal?

i can count on 1 hand how many modern day revolts didnt end in massive bloodshed. how often after a revolt does the state of society just magicly morph into the ideal society the wanted to begin with?

getting out the tyrant is only step 1, society still takes reforming post-overthrow. the only thing the people have in common during a revolt is dissatisfaction with the current leader, but good luck getting everybody to agree how things will be afterward or who will assume power. which will more than likely turn a bad situation into a worse one.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
basically in a nut shell the OP is saying that a monarch can be replaced immediately but a democratic govt will take 4 years to remove.

barking up the wrong tree buddy.

In a monarchy, you are placing absolute power into the hand of one, a flawed human just as you and I are, not matter how educated or how good our character traits are presumed and played up to be.

Humans have the ability to change.

You would be entrusting powers into him and his progenies for eternity, even doing it on behalf of your future next generations.

With such powers, DO NOT PRESUME you can easily replace him overnight. Rather, IT IS YOU that can be easily replace if you have 2nd thoughts and speak up against him.

Wait for others to revolt? Better you wait for an eternity or if he is dumb enough with his power of propaganda fails to fool or pork barrel his highly paid and capable supporters, paid and supplied by you.

The OP must be temporarily out of his mind to even think monarchy is better than democracy. Time to outgrow fairy tailes of Cinderella stories and live in the real world, buddy!



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I believe what the OP is beating around the bush about is this:

Monarchy = One person taking liability for the actions of a governing body.

Democracy/Republic = A multitude of people passing the blame for poor governance in a shell game. Individuals accept no responsibility for their actions. It's easier to oppress the constituents because there are hundreds of others they can readily place the blame on. If the people in the US could ever pin the blame on one person alone, they would have already been removed in one form or another.

What this leaves us with is a body of governance with plausible deniability. This form of governance makes it hard to root out the source of the problem and makes an overhaul of the system a complete logistical nightmare.

If you were to give the American people no expectancy of change every 2/4 years, then they would all be more apt to taking action.

If you were to put a governing body in place that could not pass the blame so readily then they would certainly tread easier and keep in line with the opinions of the majority.

The certain amount of bureaucracy we have today is more red tape than a group of people could cut through in a lifetime.

I see what the OP is trying to say, and as bad as it sounds I have to agree somewhat.

A system that would work would be this : One body of legislation with one person to voice views of each state. Lifelong appointment to the governing body. Job approval ratings taken every month. If job approval rating drops below 60% 2 months in a row, then they are immediately replaced. Executive orders will only be allowed to negate previous legislation - no new legislation to be created in this manner.

Federal government needs to be severely cut back and re-delegated back to the individual states to allow the states to compete with each other.

No tax breaks or incentives to be given to corporations to get them to relocate to any state. Incentives shall be given to the people instead. The corporations will follow the skilled labor.

Federal governments power will be limited to protecting the borders, creating and regulating a minimum quality of life (minimum wages), and restricting power of corporations (no monopolies, dissolving holdings companies, and putting a cap on the maximum size of corporations allowing for fair competition).



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


I'm not trying to say anything.

I'm simply pointing out some interesting arguments made by Hoppe that there are certain inherent advantages Monarchy has over Democracy.

The people in here making a fuss don't even understand what the purpose of the post was for. They are acting like Hoppe is arguing in favor of bringing back Monarchy rule, which he's not, and further they don't even understand what a Monarch represents in the context Hoppe uses it.

Just a bunch of reactionary posters.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Let's turn back the clock and imagine we installed the moronic Bush Jr as an Emperor after the elections....No, don't. Allow me to spare you the horror. Worse than any Fredy Kruger nitemares combine. I shudder even at such a thought!!!! :-P



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

I'm not trying to say anything.


read the title of the thread

then re-read your last post.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
in nature monarchy has its merits just like democracy. in nature a single entity goes through the process of being the highest state of its own being.in human nature monarchy is a false attempt at replicating associations with beings who attempt to reach their own full potential; because of this these beings who attempt to reach are retarded.in human nature a democracy that accepts monarchy fails its organ by reliance on the perceived superior nature of the monarch being.it is necessary for a monarch to interact with its ecosystem but not be relied upon as the central factor of its ecosystem by the beings it is interacting with.likewise in nature organs that function like democracy it is necessary for them to accept monarch beings as members of the same ecosystem but not a part of their organs functioning body.neither have merits that are greater than the part of another;yet they are not equal because of this.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The 'advantages' of a monarchical system may be advantages when in an isolated comparison, but when taken in the proper context of the entire political system these 'advantages' are not advantageous at all.

A democracy (whether that be a democratic republic, a constitutional monarchy, a representative democracy or even a direct democracy) is only as good as its people.

An absolute monarchy or other forms of government where one person has all the power is only as good as it's person. At its best, we might see a benevolent dictatorship with fantastic civil rights and economic freedoms. At its worst (and arguably more likely) we will see a total tyranny. I don't really want to take the chance. Do you?

Also, the peasants may have been able to revolt instantly and get things changed, but then what? They went back to their homes and worked all day to be owned by their feudal lord. Sounds great.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join