United Federation of Planets Communications - Communications Array Alpha

McManus wrote:If you really believe that bullshit then I suggest you read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes as he tries to rationalise absolute monarchy.

The description of the state as a Hobbesian Leviathan applies to all forms of government. However limited it is in principle, any "checks and balances" will ultimately fail because the state is the arbiter of its own disputes and will actively seek to increase its power. Given this, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out, a monarchy is not the comparative evil you might claim. Indeed a monarchy will tend to do more to implement economic policies that will result in a "good" outcome, due to the incentives with which they are faced.

Anyone who has walked through the deserted great palaces of Versailles, Schönbrunn, Charlottenburg or Stupinigi realise how much a part of the life of a nation is lost when a monarchy is abolished. If Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or Noordeinde Palace were transformed into museums, if one politician competed against another for the position of President of the Republic, Britain or the Netherlands would be a sadder and less interesting place. Our politicians are not men whom could challenge more than a thousand years of history! The monarch fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians' thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all. The best reason why the monarchy is indeed such a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. People understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is a misconception to imagine that it solely exists in the interests of the monarch and the Royal Family. It does not; it exists in the interests of the people.

Longue vie à notre Reine!

wienergobbler wrote:Anyone who has walked through the deserted great palaces of Versailles, Schönbrunn, Charlottenburg or Stupinigi realise how much a part of the life of a nation is lost when a monarchy is abolished. If Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or Noordeinde Palace were transformed into museums, if one politician competed against another for the position of President of the Republic, Britain or the Netherlands would be a sadder and less interesting place. Our politicians are not men whom could challenge more than a thousand years of history! The monarch fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians' thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all. The best reason why the monarchy is indeed such a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. People understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is a misconception to imagine that it solely exists in the interests of the monarch and the Royal Family. It does not; it exists in the interests of the people.

Longue vie à notre Reine!

I'm not going to respond to all your points, but one did strike me as being somewhat weak, viz., your appeal to tradition (the "thousand years of history"). It's a circular to suggest that "we have it, therefore we should keep it" which is largely what you were claiming.

Tradition has never weakened nations, indeed it has strengthened them. It is the epitome of culture and civilisation!

Invincible wrote:

McManus wrote:If you really believe that bullshit then I suggest you read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes as he tries to rationalise absolute monarchy.

The description of the state as a Hobbesian Leviathan applies to all forms of government. However limited it is in principle, any "checks and balances" will ultimately fail because the state is the arbiter of its own disputes and will actively seek to increase its power. Given this, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out, a monarchy is not the comparative evil you might claim. Indeed a monarchy will tend to do more to implement economic policies that will result in a "good" outcome, due to the incentives with which they are faced.

The description of the state set out by Hobbes does indeed apply to all forms of government, however, he was a strong advocate of the monarchy and even in the event of the monarchy being abolished he favoured a totalitarian form of government.

wienergobbler wrote:Anyone who has walked through the deserted great palaces of Versailles, Schönbrunn, Charlottenburg or Stupinigi realise how much a part of the life of a nation is lost when a monarchy is abolished. If Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or Noordeinde Palace were transformed into museums, if one politician competed against another for the position of President of the Republic, Britain or the Netherlands would be a sadder and less interesting place. Our politicians are not men whom could challenge more than a thousand years of history! The monarch fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians' thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all. The best reason why the monarchy is indeed such a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. People understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is a misconception to imagine that it solely exists in the interests of the monarch and the Royal Family. It does not; it exists in the interests of the people.

Longue vie à notre Reine!

That whole paragraph could be summed up as: "I'd lose my title and my sense of importance so I don't want that to happen."

One point I can't help but poke fun at is

wienergobbler wrote: The monarch fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians' thirst for power

What planet do you live on? Monarchy, or for that matter any institution, will never succeed in suppressing somebody's thirst for power as it's an integral part of human nature.

One of the reasons why Monarchy simply is not effective is that competition that inherently comes with a Republic produces better policy outcomes when contrasted with a Monarch that sits there and has no incentive or real competition.

I will concede that the Queen with unrestricted power may be a better leader than say a President but that is down to individual people, in the long run a Republic is much more dynamic and responsive than a morally repugnant institution that is based purely on birth right as opposed to merit. Why should I pay for the Queen's existence when all she did was win the gene lottery as opposed to progressing our nation? I have no qualms with HM merely the existence of her office.

wienergobbler wrote:Tradition has never weakened nations, indeed it has strengthened them. It is the epitome of culture and civilisation!

Tradition and the nostalgia that comes with it holds back nations in many ways. Firstly, tradition tends to reject / resist technological progression that makes our lives easier due to an irrational fear of change (i.e. medical treatment, the way that the House of Commons votes etc) and secondly, it shuts the door on conflicting social attitudes which may ultimately be a more practical way of living.

Slavery used to be a strong tradition, would you say that the continuity of that practice would have strengthened our nation?

McManus wrote: The description of the state set out by Hobbes does indeed apply to all forms of government, however, he was a strong advocate of the monarchy and even in the event of the monarchy being abolished he favoured a totalitarian form of government.

Quite. I wasn't disputing that particularly, but it would be unfair to describe only a monarchic system as a leviathan.

Also, regarding your comment that a republic rather than a monarchy has generally better outcomes is contentious. Firstly, because the value judgment of what is "better" is entirely subjective. My main objection, though, is that it's simply not true.

I don't wish to commit the fallacy of authority, but here's Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the subject (apologies, I can't find off hand a self-contained article by him on the subject, nor do I have the time to transcribe from my physical copy):

In short, monarchical government is reconstructed theoretically as privately owned government, which in turn is explained as promoting future-orientedness and a concern for capital values and economic calculation by the government ruler. Secondly, equally unorthodox but by the same theoretical token, democracy and the democratic experience are cast in an untypically unfavorable light. Democratic government is reconstructed as publicly owned government, which is explained as leading to present-orientedness and a disregard or neglect of capital values in government rulers, and the transition from monarchy to democracy is interpreted accordingly as civilizational decline.

Here he is discussing what his book, Democracy: The God That Failed, entails.

I should also point out he's not a monarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist.

Edit: Here's something I found over at the Mises Institute.

I'll respond to that more fully later but Hans-Hermann Hoppe is hardly a world leading thinker.

McManus wrote:That whole paragraph could be summed up as: "I'd lose my title and my sense of importance so I don't want that to happen."

Aristocracy in a republic is like a pheasant whose head has been cut off; it may run about in a lively fashion, but in fact it is dead.

McManus wrote:One of the reasons why Monarchy simply is not effective is that competition that inherently comes with a Republic produces better policy outcomes when contrasted with a Monarch that sits there and has no incentive or real competition.

A republic does not by definition produce better policy than a monarchy would.

McManus wrote:Why should I pay for the Queen's existence when all she did was win the gene lottery as opposed to progressing our nation?

The Royal Family plays a valuable role every day throughout the country. There is hardly any media coverage regarding the engagements of the Royal Family these days. Take a look at their appointments on the Royal website. You will notice it's a huge number. Their work is quite underestimated. People often do not realise how extensive the role of the Royal Family is. The reason is simple. Discussion is not adequately taught in our educational systems. Even today I often do not see it encouraged at the university where I teach. If it would be taught people would know the arguments in favour of the monarchy and against a dastardly republic. The constant attempts to make it look like an anachronistic and out-dated institution saddens me deeply. Like all institutions in an ever changing society it needs to be examined to see which improvements can be made so that it remains relevant. This is exactly what is being done. Committees have been established in order to discuss the way ahead for our monarchy. Many republicans claim that a state cannot move forward when the monarchy still exists. This means that countries like ours, including Spain, Japan, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden would not progress. This is not true. In fact the majority does not wish to have their monarchy abolished due to the simple fact that is indeed beneficial to their country. Many countries that had a monarchy but have since become a republic wish that they could restore it. Even in a forsaken country as Iraq they have made attempts to restore the monarchy because it is a valuable uniting symbol for the country and the people. One might say that a monarchy is not democratic. I beg to differ. The monarchy is an institution that is very democratic indeed. It stands over and above politics, appointments, elections and tenures. It provides a continuous factor from the present to the future.

What is a republic? A republic has a president that serves as both head of government as well as head of state. These are two completely different positions. Too much power is concentrated in the position of president due to the combination of the two aforementioned positions. Granted there are checks and balances in place, but that does not suffice. As both head of government and head of state a president of a republic has a massive workload and huge responsibilities. These two positions are often incompatible with one another and are indeed very time-consuming. A monarchy will remove the ceremonial, unifying and figurehead roles from the head of government, which in a monarchy is the prime-minister. By doing so this will allow the prime-minister to concentrate solely on all those matters governmental. Germany is as we know a republic. Yet they have a president who holds a position similar to that of a monarch in a monarchy. The downside of such a presidential figurehead is to me self-explanatory. First of all it's a limited period of tenure. Secondly he or she attempts to stand over and above politics, however this person cannot as he or she is related to a political party and is usually someone who cannot symbolise the history and unity of the country and even is often someone who is usually unknown to the outside world and in some cases even unknown to his or her own people. In all republics a president has to be elected by the people. This president shall always favour their party and his or her own power above anything else. A monarch does not. A monarch is able to continue the achievements of his or her forebears and will strengthen the position of his or her successors. A monarch such as Her Majesty has an enormous experience at her disposal and as such she can act as a sounding board and she will also often transfer her experience to our political leaders. The Royal Family is able to undertake more charitable and ceremonial duties than a presidential family ever can because they are often more occupied with government and elections and therefore cannot fulfil these duties quite a well as the Royal Family can.

One might bring forth the statement that in a monarchy one cannot achieve the highest position because it is only open to the monarch and his or her successors. Once again, I beg to differ. This is not the highest position. The highest position is that of the prime-minister and is as we know open to anyone. The monarch is only able to exercise certain powers which can - in most cases - only be exercised on the advice of government in the first place. The prime-minister holds most powers even in a monarchy. Indeed a monarch has not been democratically elected, but the monarchy itself is entirely under democratic control but stands above elections and is itself supported by the majority of the political parties and the people today. As I wrote above, our precious monarchy will not be able to survive unless one takes into account the attitude of the people. If the people do not want a monarchy, then is shall not continue. One only sadly has to look at France, Germany, Austria and Italy. As of today, the majority of the people do not wish to see the monarchy abolished and therefore it fortunately enough will continue to exist. Our monarchy has evolved and developed over the centuries and the monarch will always modernise because it is required to do so for the good of the country and the people. The monarch will always remain a massive symbol of non-political-unity and association with a certain country. It is therefore that we should never abolish our most beloved and precious monarchies!

As Margaret Thatcher once said:
"Those who imagine that a politician would make
a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might
perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."

The monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us!

Again I shall respond to that later. However you've missed out several chunks of what I said including this bit:

McManus wrote:

wienergobbler wrote:Tradition has never weakened nations, indeed it has strengthened them. It is the epitome of culture and civilisation!

Tradition and the nostalgia that comes with it holds back nations in many ways. Firstly, tradition tends to reject / resist technological progression that makes our lives easier due to an irrational fear of change (i.e. medical treatment, the way that the House of Commons votes etc) and secondly, it shuts the door on conflicting social attitudes which may ultimately be a more practical way of living.

Slavery used to be a strong tradition, would you say that the continuity of that practice would have strengthened our nation?

I know what your opinion on the subject is, you've told me it numerous times, but I am curious to see if you will defend Slavery (don't worry - you can be honest).

McManus wrote:I know what your opinion on the subject is, you've told me it numerous times, but I am curious to see if you will defend Slavery (don't worry - you can be honest).

How can you possible think that I look favourable upon slavery? You of all people should know better. Apparently you do not know me at all. The simple fact that I have certain people whom willingly support my household, does not necessary imply that I am in favour of slavery, McManus. There is a perfectly adequate reason why slavery has been abolished in most civilised countries. There is also a massive difference between those that can be called servants and those that can be called slaves.

As the Dalai Lama once said:
"All human beings have the
right to pursue happiness and
live in peace and freedom."