What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say

[r3volution 3.0]

Because the monarch is distinctly not part of the subject population, the people are far more likely to care about retaining their own rights by not setting the precedent of removing others.

I see no evidence of that.

It is sufficient to cause monarchies and oligarchies to enact bad economic policies and that is all that matters.

Once again, the argument isn't that monarchies won't enact bad policies. The argument is that monarchies will tend to enact fewer bad policies than democracies. As for the specific bad policy in question (mass welfare), your claim that the people would have as much political clout to demand welfare in a monarchy as in a democracy is simply wrong, for reasons explained (it is also obviously wrong, on its face). I don't know what else to tell you.

That is debatable.

It's not debatable that monarchies were much smaller in terms of taxing/spending:GDP, or that ~0% of that spending went to "social programs."

It's not debatable that monarchies regulated economic activity much less intensively.

I said by his "rightful" heir.

I mean who decides that the current monarch must step down.

[Swordsmyth]

I see no evidence of that.

The evidence is the rights we still retain that monarchies historically removed.

Once again, the argument isn't that monarchies won't enact bad policies. The argument is that monarchies will tend to enact fewer bad policies than democracies. As for the specific bad policy in question (mass welfare), your claim that the people would have as much political clout to demand welfare in a monarchy as in a democracy is simply wrong, for reasons explained (it is also obviously wrong, on its face). I don't know what else to tell you.



It's not debatable that monarchies were much smaller in terms of taxing/spending:GDP, or that ~0% of that spending went to "social programs."

It's not debatable that monarchies regulated economic activity much less intensively.

They disrupted the economy in ways that are harder to measure by granting monopolies and seizing assests etc., they also distributed more of the stolen wealth and assets to the other oligarchs.

In modern times they would emulate modern governments and spend on "social programs", Saudi Arabia has been a giant welfare state for decades, much of what is wrong in modern governments simply hadn't been innovated for most of history.

I mean who decides that the current monarch must step down.

That is a good question but you haven't answered mine yet.

Would you support a "Bill of rights" which the monarch could be dethroned for violating as theoretical concept? (You can reserve the right to not implement it if details like the one you brought up aren't resolved to your satisfaction)

[r3volution 3.0]

The evidence is the rights we still retain that monarchies historically removed.

Such as?

They disrupted the economy in ways that are harder to measure by granting monopolies

As do democracies, of course. Can you cite any evidence that this was more common under monarchy?

In modern times they would emulate modern governments and spend on "social programs", Saudi Arabia has been a giant welfare state for decades, much of what is wrong in modern governments simply hadn't been innovated for most of history.

Let's look at the numbers (total spending as % GDP):

Qatar = 31%
UAE = 33%
Saudi Arabia = 39%
US = 39%
UK = 44%
France = 57%

Some monarchies are unstable and have to buy popular support (e.g. those existing in a political powder-keg created by the warmongering of the world's great democracy), but that isn't inherent in the system. For monarchy, the government having to buy popular support is a bug; for democracy, it's a feature.

That is a good question but you haven't answered mine yet.

Would you support a "Bill of rights" which the monarch could be dethroned for violating as theoretical concept? (You can reserve the right to not implement it if details like the one you brought up aren't resolved to your satisfaction)

No, as that would defeat the purpose. The system you're describing isn't a monarchy. If the group empowered to recall the "monarch" is the people, then it's democracy; if the group is an oligarchy, then the whole system is an oligarchy, with the "monarch" being something like chairman of the board.

[Swordsmyth]

Such as?

The right to bear arms, freedom of speech, due process etc.

As do democracies, of course. Can you cite any evidence that this was more common under monarchy?

History.

Some monarchies are unstable and have to buy support; it's not an inherent feature of the system (as it is in democracy).

It is a feature of any system, the only thing that changes is whose support needs to be bought and and what % share of the theft and pillage.

Nonetheless, let's look at the numbers (total spending as % GDP):

Qatar = 31%
UAE = 33%
Saudi Arabia = 39%
US = 39%
UK = 44%
France = 57%

The oil money helps as does the US defense umbrella.

No, as that would defeat the purpose. The system you're describing isn't a monarchy. If the group empowered to recall the "monarch" is the people, then it's democracy; if the group is an oligarchy, then the whole system is an oligarchy, with the "monarch" being something like chairman of the board.

No, that would only be the case if he could be removed for any or no cause.

I'm glad we got you on record supporting unrestrained tyranny though.

We know you don't support revolts so it seems you believe that the king can do no wrong.

[r3volution 3.0]

The right to bear arms, freedom of speech, due process etc.

And could you cite some evidence (preferably a survey, but if not anecdotes will do) that those tend to be better protected in democracy?

I'm glad we got you on record supporting unrestrained tyranny though.

I've long been on record as a supporter of absolute monarchy, for the reason that it's the most liberal form of government.

We know you don't support revolts so it seems you believe that the king can do no wrong.

Of course the king can do wrong.

Your erroneous assumption is that making him accountable to someone else will improve the situation, when the opposite is true.

[Swordsmyth]

And could you cite some evidence (preferable a survey, but if not anecdotes will do) that those tend to be better protected in democracy?

History is full of examples of monarchies abolishing them entirely, democracies and republics tend to degrade over time but slower and usually never to so complete a degree.

[r3volution 3.0]

And could you cite some evidence (preferably a survey, but if not anecdotes will do) that those tend to be better protected in democracy?

History is full of examples of monarchies abolishing them entirely, democracies and republics tend to degrade over time but slower and usually never to so complete a degree.

I guess that's a "no."

[r3volution 3.0]

Anyway, returning to the bill of rights issue...

No, that would only be the case if he could be removed for any or no cause.

So, some entity (let's call it "the Council") will have the power to remove the king, but only for violating the bill of rights.

Tell me what happens if they go ahead and vote to remove him for what they claim is a violation, but actually isn't.

(think about what happens when the SCOTUS says that a law which is clearly unconstitutional isn't)

[Swordsmyth]

Anyway, returning to the bill of rights issue...



So, some entity (let's call it "the Council") will have the power to remove the king, but only for violating the bill of rights.

Tell me what happens if they go ahead and vote to remove him for what they claim is a violation, but actually isn't.

(think about what happens when the SCOTUS says that a law which is clearly unconstitutional isn't)

Either nobody will follow the order or you will have a civil war or a successful coup, which you would have had in an absolute monarchy if the oligarchs gained the level of power required for them to think they could get away with such an action.

[r3volution 3.0]

Either nobody will follow the order or you will have a civil war or a successful coup, which you would have had in an absolute monarchy if the oligarchs gained the level of power required for them to think they could get away with such an action.

Is that what happens when the US government does illegal things (i.e. every second of every day)?

[Swordsmyth]

Is that what happens when the US government does illegal things (i.e. every second of every day)?

We are not talking about ordinary illegal things, we are talking about the removal of a head of state on false charges, it will become a question of who continues to take his orders and who decides to take orders from the pretender to the throne.
Unless of course he submits to being deposed, but that is no different than if he did so in an absolute monarchy and is extremely unlikely if he is not guilty.
When our current government does illegal things in defiance of Congress or the President it usually is judged to not be worth a civil war since the Congressmen and the President will still retain their seats but that is not the case in the scenario we are discussing.

[r3volution 3.0]

it will become a question of who continues to take his orders and who decides to take orders from the pretender to the throne.

And you're assuming that it will be the pro-bill-of-rights side that will prevail?

[Swordsmyth]

And you're assuming that it will be the pro-bill-of-rights side that will prevail?

No, but if the ruler is being removed because he is guilty of violating the bill of rights then more people will be likely to support the removal and less will be likely to oppose it than if it didn't exist, therefore your odds of the good guys winning will be higher.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, but if the ruler is being removed because he is guilty of violating the bill of rights then more people will be likely to support the removal and less will be likely to oppose it than if it didn't exist, therefore your odds of the good guys winning will be higher.

Still not quite sure what you mean...

1. A liberal council tries to remove an illiberal monarch and succeeds. (good)

2. An illiberal council tries to remove a liberal monarch and succeeds. (bad)

You're saying that #1 is more likely than #2?

If so, why?

[Swordsmyth]

Still not quite sure what you mean...

1. A liberal council tries to remove an illiberal monarch and succeeds. (good)

2. An illiberal council tries to remove a liberal monarch and succeeds. (bad)

You're saying that #1 is more likely than #2?

I'm saying that #1 will be more likely with a bill of rights than without.
The specific odds of #1 or #2 succeeding will depend on other factors, mostly the relative strength of the council vs. the king but also others like the mood and philosophy of the people.
The existence of a bill of rights will not affect the odds of #2 succeeding.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm saying that #1 will be more likely with a bill of rights than without.

The specific odds of #1 or #2 succeeding will depend on other factors, mostly the relative strength of the council vs. the king but also others like the mood and philosophy of the people.

The existence of a bill of rights will not affect the odds of #2 succeeding.

The underlined is the problem. It's true that a liberal council can more easily remove an illiberal king if they can point to a bill of rights. But the bill of rights also helps an illiberal council remove a liberal king. The bill of rights won't interpret itself; it will mean whatever the council says it means (you have set them up as its final, non-reviewable interpreter, like our Supreme Court with respect to the Constitution). The specific content of the bill is essentially irrelevant. In effect, the council has the power to remove the king for whatever reason it likes (much like how impeachment of a US President works in practice - "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever the House says it means). So, ultimately, the question is whether the king or the council is more likely to be liberal. If the king is more likely to be liberal than the council (as is the case, for reasons explained), then the quality of government can only suffer by making him responsible to the council.

[Swordsmyth]

The underlined is the problem. It's true that a liberal council can more easily remove an illiberal king if they can point to a bill of rights. But the bill of rights also helps an illiberal council remove a liberal king. The bill of rights won't interpret itself; it will mean whatever the council says it means (you have set them up as its final, non-reviewable interpreter, like our Supreme Court with respect to the Constitution). The specific content of the bill is essentially irrelevant. In effect, the council has the power to remove the king for whatever reason it likes (much like how impeachment of a US President works in practice - "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever the House says it means). So, ultimately, the question is whether the king or the council is more likely to be liberal. If the king is more likely to be liberal than the council (as is the case, for reasons explained), then the quality of government can only suffer by making him responsible to the council.

The members of the council or their secret backers would have been just as likely to overthrow an absolute monarch who didn't suit them, they just wouldn't have been council members.

[r3volution 3.0]

The members of the council or their secret backers would have been just as likely to overthrow an absolute monarch who didn't suit them, they just wouldn't have been council members.

If you're saying that whether a political faction has the legal right to remove the king has no effect on its ability to do so (a) that's not true (for the same reason it isn't true that subjects have the same power to influence a king as voters have to influence an elected government), and (b), if it were true, what then would be the point of having the council in the first place?

[Swordsmyth]

If you're saying that whether a political faction has the legal right to remove the king has no effect on its ability to do so (a) that's not true (for the same reason it isn't true that subjects have the same power to influence a king as voters have to influence an elected government), and (b), if it were true, what then would be the point of having the council in the first place?

We are discussing false charges, the use of false charges will not gain them any more support than if they declared an uprising in an absolute monarchy with the same charges, but in cases where the charges are true it will increase their support.

Even if their position did gain them some support in the case of false charges it wouldn't be much and would be far less than it would gain them in the case of true charges.

Any slight increase in risk to a liberal monarch (if any) would be a small price to pay for the increased protection of the people's rights during all the reigns that weren't at risk of overthrow plus the increased odds of a successful overthrow of a monarch that violated the bill of rights.

[TheTexan]

Donald Trump would be a great King

Not only would we have a wall, it would have a moat

[Swordsmyth]

Donald Trump would be a great King

Not only would we have a wall, it would have a moat

And the moat would have dragons.

[TheTexan]

And the moat would have dragons.

And Mexico would pay for it

[timosman]

Still not quite sure what you mean...

1. A liberal council tries to remove an illiberal monarch and succeeds. (good)

2. An illiberal council tries to remove a liberal monarch and succeeds. (bad)

You're saying that #1 is more likely than #2?

If so, why?

That's what we like to call - an in depth analysis.

[heavenlyboy34]

And the moat would have dragons.

The best dragons. THE BEST.

[timosman]

And the moat would have dragons.

Golden wings.

[Swordsmyth]

The best dragons. THE BEST.

Absolutely Huuuuge.

[Swordsmyth]

Golden wings.

And jewel encrusted underbellies.

[r3volution 3.0]

the use of false charges will not gain them any more support than if they declared an uprising in an absolute monarchy with the same charges, but in cases where the charges are true it will increase their support.

As I said earlier:

The bill of rights won't interpret itself; it will mean whatever the council says it means (you have set them up as its final, non-reviewable interpreter, like our Supreme Court with respect to the Constitution). The specific content of the bill is essentially irrelevant. In effect, the council has the power to remove the king for whatever reason it likes (much like how impeachment of a US President works in practice - "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever the House says it means).

I don't know that I have anything to add.

Now, to segue into a related issue, let's consider the so-called "rule of law." This phrase can mean either that (1) "no one is above the law" (what people learn in 9th grade civics), or (2) that the law is relatively constant and predictable. The first sense of "rule of law" is absurd. The law does not create, interpret, or enforce itself; people do. Those people are above the law, and this is true regardless of the form of government. As we discussed earlier, there is always a sovereign with final, non-reviewable decision-making power. The second sense of "rule of law," however, is both realistic and highly desirable. Regardless of the specific content of the law, it's always good that it be predictable, so that people can make plans. This is sometimes called "regime certainty" (Bob Higgs of the LvMI has written on the subject, FYI). In the popular imagination, the law in a monarchy must be chaotic and unpredictable, but in fact the opposite is true. It tends to be more stable and predictable simply because the monarch serves for a very long time, contra the regularly scheduled changes of government in a democracy.

So, while it's counterproductive to empower some body other than the monarch to police a bill of rights, having some clear statement of the fundamental law of the realm is a excellent idea, would be embraced by any rational monarch, and was in fact the norm in historical monarchies. The monarch has an interest in promulgating (and then adhering to, as much as possible [though no one could "make" him to do so]) a constitution defining the structure and general principles of the government, and the law governing the people at large: just as a corporation has an interest in clearly defining its internal organization, how it's employees are to behave, etc.

[r3volution 3.0]

An historical example of the monarchical approach to law:

Corpus Juris Civilis kôr´pəs jo͝o´rĭs sĭvī´lĭs [key], most comprehensive code of Roman law and the basic document of all modern civil law . Compiled by order of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, the first three parts appeared between 529 and 535 and were the work of a commission of 17 jurists presided over by the eminent jurist Tribonian. The Corpus Juris was an attempt to systematize Roman law, to reduce it to order after over 1,000 years of development. The resulting work was more comprehensive, systematic, and thorough than any previous work of that nature, including the Theodosian Code . The four parts of the Corpus Juris are the Institutes, a general introduction to the work and a general survey of the whole field of Roman law the Digest or Pandects, by far the most important part, intended for practitioners and judges and containing the law in concrete form plus selections from 39 noted classical jurists such as Gaius, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Papinian the Codex or Code, a collection of imperial legislation since the time of Hadrian and the Novels or Novellae, compilations of later imperial legislation issued between 535 and 565 but never officially collected. Because it was published in numerous editions, copies of this written body of Roman law survived the collapse of the Roman empire and avoided the fate of earlier legal texts—notably those of the great Roman jurist Gaius. With the revival of interest in Roman law (especially at Bologna) in the 11th cent., the Corpus Juris was studied and commented on exhaustively by such scholars as Irnerius . Jurists and scholars trained in this Roman law played a leading role in the creation of national legal systems throughout Europe, and the Corpus Juris Civilis thus became the ultimate model and inspiration for the legal system of virtually every continental European nation. The name Corpus Juris Civilis was first applied to the collection by the 16th-century jurist Denys Godefroi.

https://www.infoplease.com/encyclope...-juris-civilis

[timosman]

I don't know that I have anything to add.

This should be a hint for you to stop posting.


Is Zippy coming to work today?