I Love the Monarchy

@Kwek00 I've wanted to start a cult lol 👍

@Kwek00 Hey Tom Paine, your beloved politicians, in their enlightened institutions, have more power than Louis XIV and George III ever dreamed of. And they have waged the wars to match it. But, not even counting their wars -- in the twentieth century they killed more people than had been killed in all the previous centuries combined.

Who said I loved them? I have no problem comparing western democracies btw when it comes to death tolls. Humans have do things that are considered "flawed" in the big scheme of things. Since institutions, politicians, governments, ... etc all consists of humans. Mistakes (really terrible mistakes) will be made. Since humans are "flawed", once you start looking at the big picture.

A human being, a person, an individual can be "irrational" especially when emotions take over. We are not computers, we have instincts and strong emotions. We sometimes act with our primitive mind.

And even when we are calm, when our actions can be considered "rational", our decisions are made by the knowledge/data that we have accumulated over time (through experience and accumulation of knowledge). People are rarely truly original, we just have another data set than other people. And with that dataset, we make "rational" decisions for ourselves (not for other people). On a micro scale (for ourselves) we are rational... in the big picture, our "rational" decisions can be seen as being "irrational" (because most people don't have 100 percent of all the knowledge availble to them, because we are only human). So yes... again, humans can be "flawed" in the big scheme of things. I'm not even going to debate the fact that humans are prone to mistake. I agree with that.

But at least in my system... the wrong doers can be punished. In the romantic stuff you are proposing, only "God" can punish the ruler. No one can get rid of them in a "legal" way because the ruler stays there till he's dead. Let's compare the 2 forms of state.

[image deleted]
Here is an image, that shows the 2 forms of state. It's from a lecture by a university professor called "Noor Syafika Ramli". She gives a sociology course in Malaysia. It's the best one to show everyone what the differences between the 2 forms of state are.

* In a traditional monarchy, the people that they reign over, have no way of choosing their own leaders. Their freedom on self-governance is non-excisting. It's submit our revolt (by force and violence). In a democracy, you can vote out people that are a failure to the majority. Note: [i]that "the majority" in a democracy, can become a dictatorship over the minority. This can be a danger towards the minority. But in a monarchy, the 1 ruler has the possibility of not even caring for the majority he/she can oppress all. As long as he/she keeps his army well fed and keeps a strong position, he/she pretty much doesn't have to care about the will of the people.[/i]

* In a traditional monarch, only the bloodline provides the leaders. No matter how dumb, idiotic the person is. The moment he/she gets in power, it's for life! What the population thinks about them is not important. They have no real incentive to take care of their people because they don't need their support (vote). They just need to make sure that if there is a revolution, they are strong enough to beat it down. If you think this is more stable than power politics in a democracy! Then think again! Princess and Princes were killed before they could raise to power. "Game of Thrones" is not to far fetched (no dragons or white walkers, but loads of bloodshed and fucking), look at all the wars and intrigues in England (for example) during "the wars of the roses".

* In western democracies we got representatives that are voted into office. In a monarchy aristocracy rules. Even in England when "voting" became a thing, you got crooked ways of getting into office. The voting system during the monarchy in the 19th century was largely a farce. If you want an example why I make this statement, just look up "who" was allowed to vote. Also look at the famous "rotten boroughs. A lot of these aristocrats became royals because they got their title from... yes, the monarch! So opposition wasn't always found. A system without any opposition is bound to be or become a dictatorship. Opposition keeps people "real", creates checks and balances, it gives alternatives, it provides the room for progress. A room of people that always agree have no incentive to better anything unless they all agree something is wrong. They have one mind, one goal, they are blind to everything that they don't want to see. And again... they have no incentive to do something for the people, cause they can stay at power without their approval.

* No freedom of speech. You can only say what the ruling class wants to hear. There is a reason why monarchies had the biggest powers during the dark ages. If you want a great example, read the story of "Thomas More". Writer of the book "Utopia". Great guy, roman catholic under Henry the VIII. He helped Henry persecute Protestant reformists that followed Luther. Then later when Henry (great guy btw, great ruler, go monarchy) did all his business with his women, More refused to go to one of the marriages. He got persecuted because it was a shame he didn't support Henrie's divorces (because he was a catholic). He died in 1535 a year before Henry reformed the English Catholic tradition to the Anglican church. Oh yeah! before we go on! That's the monarch standing before God right there. He didn't really care about God, she reformed religion. Great stuff Becky! You want more people that were persecuted by aristocracy? Just look up any liberal thinker. From Hobbes to Spinoza... they were all afraid for their lives, because they criticised absolute power by people (usually in the form of monarchs, but they also criticize dictatorship).

* In our western democracies, powers are separated (trias politica). This is an important asset in our political world today. During an absolute monarchy, this didn't exist.
- Law Makers
- Execution
- Judges
... they don't mix in a western democracy. During absolute monarchies, the monarch is judge and executioner. Who wants to live in a system like that today? Or do you believe that all the people in a blood lineage are as smart as Solomon? Lol, the idea in the bible was that Solomon was a wise king. The fact that the Bible makes the distinction saying that he's smart, means that they also had kings that weren't so wise. Do you want to be judged by an asshole? Executed by someone who maybe didn't even want to listen to your argument? Arbitrary judgement might I say because the absolute leader is not bound to the law. They make the law. There doesn't have to be rationality, they just do what they want, and it's okay, cause they are king. Do you really want to live in a system like that?

Our politicians can be held responsible for their actions. They are judged according to the laws of the land. They are bound to the law of the land. If they go beyond their jurisdiction they get fired out of the office. They have to keep to the rules... What do you choose? Dictatorship? Or someone that is bound to laws, laws that are telling them they have to do good to the people. It's also these "laws of the lands" that usually include the protection of minorities. It's the thing that should protect everyone from crooked politicians AND the majority... that and the fact that they need your support for the next election.

Are you talking about the 20th century? Who are the enlightened politicians that kept the bloodiest conflicts? You show them to me Becky! You show them. It's not enough to say that they are there, you just type them out. Proof your point instead of just making a statement that is simply not true!!! Western democracies did wage wars... but they were not responsible for most of the bloodiest conflicts in the 20th century. Not by a long shot.

[b]1st World War[/b] = One of the reasons in Europe that more and more people got the right to vote, and social rights. Was because they went to fight for monarchs and aristocracy. The first world war, was not a battle between western democracies. A lot of people didn't even have voting rights back then. That changed! Because the masses that died in Belgian fields, in French fields, in turkey... all over the battle front. Most of them (specially in western europe) demanded more respect AFTER the bloodshed.

[b]2nd World War[/b] = Germany, Italy, Japan, were not western democracies. The ideology of Fascism (Germany and Italy) were explicitly ANTI-Enlightenment. And Japan? They were ruled by an absolute Emperor. No western democracy there.

Those are the 2 biggest conflicts of the 20th century. In the world where more and more people got votes (like Europe)... there was less bloodshed instead of more. Europe hasn't been so peaceful in a long time. Largely because everyone gets a vote, politicians have to answer to their people and there is trade between the countries. Capitalism kinda helped here, although capitalism has violent tendencies towards countries that don't really belong to the western block... ex-colonies (Africa for instance)... there is a war for resources. But look up western Europes' history, I'm really fortunate that I live in a western democracy AND NOT during the time of the big monarchies.

Just do the reading... I really don't understand that in 2017 we have to debate this stuff with people that grew up in a western democracy. That you haven't got this out of your schooling is just ridiculous. That you can choose for an arbitrary dictatorship instead of the choice of choosing your own leaders, just blows my mind. I usually don't call people names... I dislike it when people start calling names to make their point. BUT in this case, I dare to make the statement that: "[b]You are either a troll, or you are a complete idiot![/b]". I like to listen to everyone's arguments, but this is so idiotic that I literally want to vomit all over my keyboard.

And yes, politicians aren't good. But you can vote them out of office if you don't like them. A Monarch is for life... you stuck with the asshole that was made of the seed of so called "royal blood". They become leaders because their parents had sex. And that's what you are trying to sell us here... a political leader, with absolute power, not because he's smart but because his parents were from a certain stock and they had sex. Great stuff Becky, great stuff... I thought after reading some of your posts you couldn't sink lower, but thanks for proving me wrong I guess. Great stuff.