Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Mmmm... if you mean the British model (constitutional monarchy which is a de facto representative democracy with the monarch choosing to remain apolitical and ceremonial), then I really don't see how it's much better than a pure representative democracy. The only slight advantage is that we can send the Queen over on ceremonial and diplomatic functions, and have her occupy the headlines, while the Prime Minister stays behind and governs, but I'm just not sure it's worth all the consequent semi-political fudging.

If you mean a monarchy as in a de facto dictatorship, then I'm curious (and a bit skeptical) about the logic behind that.

I think the optimal form of government is a fully participatory democracy, which is just about possible with modern IT.

I've always been a fan of the benevolent dictatorship...combined with civil rights written in stone and the dictator fully aware that he can be removed at anytime a national no-confidence vote is cast.

But then, I'm easy to get along with, so that may just be pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part.

dcs wrote: I think a monarchy is far more desirable than democracy.

Hereditary, force of arms, both, other? A joke and I'm just dense?

dcs: "Sanctions are an act of war. How exactly do we improve the lot of people living under tyranny by denying them material goods? Why should people living under tyranny feel well-disposed towards the U.S., and ill-disposed towards their tyrannical leader, if the U.S. is imposing sanctions on them? Do you think the Iraqis approved of U.S. sanctions? How have sanctions helped the people of Cuba? "


The idea is that sanctions force those oppressed to demand action by their political leaders. If that action doesn't take place, those oppressed rise up and take control for themselves. Its not about being "liked", its about the oppressed of other countries taking control of their own lives and nations. Like I said, I don't support cutting off food or medicine to these populations. But I do support cutting off those things that would artificially prop up corrupt and suppressive regimes.

Look what happened with the Soviet Union, it collapsed. Why? Because it was a corrupt nation built around a lie (communism). Did sanctions against it by the free world increase the speed of its collapse? You bet it did (as did the arms race).

dcs:
"I am not an isolationist, but I am also not a globalist nor a nationalist."

I think its common since that at some point our country can't turn its back on world strife, be it starvation, mass executions, or total loss of freedom by some people. If that means acting with the UN great. If that means acting alone, than so be it. I'm not talking about anything in particular, just in general. I'm sure every nation feels the same way. So, I'll bet, even you would agree to interfere with another countries existance if enough bad shit went down there to innocents.

dcs:
And I don't think democracy is all it's cracked up to be.
So what system is better? Dictatorships? Kings? Democracy might not result in the removal of waist, and corruption, but at least people, with their own best interests at heart, can effect the direction of their destiny (rather then some power-munger).
All I can say is, I hope you one day change your mind.

dcs:
"And I don't think we should impose American-style "freedom" on people who don't want it."

Niether do I. That has to be their choice. But if they don't here both sides of the story, they'll always buy the state's (or whoever is in control)propaganda hook line and sinker. Thats why you can't just sit back and say "thats someone elses problem", when people don't know they have a choice (if there willing to fight for it), they just assume thats the way it has to be. Why should we care? Because were human, and because one day when all these little governments take over and rule their people completely they'll come knocking...knocking on your bedroom door.

Oh, and to add, I don't think these freedoms are "American", they are inate and universal. They exist in the most primitive of tribes in the most remote places on the globe. For instance, there is nothing uniquely American about civilians owning weapons to fight terranical governments.

One of my favorite scenes in Braveheart is when the Scotts start pulling out hidden weapons from their roofs etc. It takes a surpressed people to know there are few things worse then not living free. Freedom always trumps security and prosperity (assuming the place isn't in total chaos).

AxeMental wrote:The idea is that sanctions force those oppressed to demand action by their political leaders.

But they don't work that way in practice . . . instead, they tend to unite the "oppressed" people with their oppressor against the sanctioning country.

All I can say is, I hope you one day change your mind.

Not likely. Democracy is pernicious.

One of my favorite scenes in Braveheart is when the Scotts start pulling out hidden weapons from their roofs etc. It takes a surpressed people to know there are few things worse then not living free. Freedom always trumps security and prosperity (assuming the place isn't in total chaos).

Note that the Scots didn't win their freedom until they united under their king (the great Robert the Bruce). Democracy got them nothing.

Yet sanctions do work, you just ignore those cases when they do (as in the fall of the Soviet Union).

The Scotts worked with the system they had. It would have been culturally improbable for them to have removed the British and at the same time disregarded their system of government.

The United States, as I recall, was the first power to do this in a very long time. And it speaks volumes for the kind of men that forged this nation. Washington who was offered the role of American King by his generals scolded them for even hinting such a thing.

Even this evolution and "great experiment" was the natural evolution of events begone by the British. Now this great experiment is taken for granted in places like Pakistan and India. But once upon a time it was unheard of.

Out of curiosity, which system of government would you prefer to live under, one that was democratic or one that was not? You seem to be avoiding the answer.

Also, P&P, you avoided the brain implant question as well. The arguement of "I have nothing to fear and no reason to even think about cameras since I don't break laws" will be the same arguement made to those who recieve their first implants. And its coming brother...its coming. "Soylent Green is men" ! http://www.dvddrive-in.com/images/n-s/soylentgreen2.jpg

AxeMental wrote:Yet sanctions do work, you just ignore those cases when they do (as in the fall of the Soviet Union).

The USSR didn't fall from sanctions. It fell because Communism is inherently self-contradictory.

The United States, as I recall, was the first power to do this in a very long time. And it speaks volumes for the kind of men that forged this nation. Washington who was offered the role of American King by his generals scolded them for even hinting such a thing.

Of course he did -- he was a Freemason and Freemasons have worked tirelessly to destroy the old order.

Out of curiosity, which system of government would you prefer to live under, one that was democratic or one that was not? You seem to be avoiding the answer.

How so? I just said above that I thought a monarchy was far preferable to democracy. So obviously I would prefer to live under the former. And of course I'm not talking about monarchy on the English model -- I believe in the Divine Right of kings.

If one believes in private property, by what right do "the people" take the property of the Crown?

Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting to see who gets eaten for dinner. Representative democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting to see which sheep gets eaten for dinner.

Sanctions are an act of war. How exactly do we improve the lot of people living under tyranny by denying them material goods?

Since when has it become the responsibility of the West to provide goods OR relief from tyranny to the rest of the world? Would you argue that the recent World Bank decision to postpone or limit loans to corrupt countries was also an act of war? Or maybe you're one of those who believe the US goaded the Japanese into WWII by cutting off their steel imports? If you categorize the effective use of Western economic pressure as an act of war you trivialize genuine acts of war like flying an aircraft into the WTC, tunnelling into Israel to kidnap soldiers or the Pearl Harbor attack.

dcs:

"How so? I just said above that I thought a monarchy was far preferable to democracy. So obviously I would prefer to live under the former. And of course I'm not talking about monarchy on the English model -- I believe in the Divine Right of kings"


Aha! I see the problem. We're just completely on different pages...or well, planets.

" -- I believe in the Divine Right of kings"

This is a joke, right. "Divine Right"...WTF? Are you serious?

You misunderstand. I did not say that it is the responsibility of the West to provide goods or relief from tyranny. I said that sanctions, which stop the flow of free trade to other countries, are an act of war. The West has no responsibility to provide goods or any other sort of aid to tyrannical governments. However, preventing businesses, private individuals, and even other countries from trading with or investing in projects in so-called "tyrannical" countries is an act of war.

Robert B. Stinnett provides ample proof that the U.S. goaded the Japanese into war in his book Day of Deceit. That doesn't mean that the Japanese still aren't responsible for Pearl Harbor (though to their credit, they avoided attacking civilian settlements in Hawaii, which the U.S. certainly did not do when they firebombed Japan). Explaining is not the same thing as excusing.

Israel would have less problems with its soldiers being kidnapped if it treated its neighbors with anything approaching basic human decency and respect.

I do not believe that the WTC attacks can accurately be characterized as acts of war as they were not sponsored by a foreign government.

AxeMental wrote:This is a joke, right. "Divine Right"...WTF? Are you serious?

What gave you the impression that I was joking?

Could you explain how birth into a position makes a person right for the job? And do you really think God selects individual families to run nations through generations?

Erm....I gotta side with Axe here on the Divine Right issue. Assuming dcs was referring to the Christian god here- it seems to me that ONLY nation with a divinely chosen monarch would be ancient Israel. Even then, God didn't really want to them to have a king at all, and only relented when the people demanded a king like their neighbors the Philistines.

As for me, I believe in the Divine Right of Kellri to decide for Kellri what's right and wrong. This smoothly dovetails with my belief in the Divine Right of an oppressed populace to rise up and hang their monarch from the nearest tree.

Saints and Kings. Two categories of people that are best when dead.

Kellri wrote:Erm....I gotta side with Axe here on the Divine Right issue. Assuming dcs was referring to the Christian god here- it seems to me that ONLY nation with a divinely chosen monarch would be ancient Israel. Even then, God didn't really want to them to have a king at all, and only relented when the people demanded a king like their neighbors the Philistines.

As for me, I believe in the Divine Right of Kellri to decide for Kellri what's right and wrong. This smoothly dovetails with my belief in the Divine Right of an oppressed populace to rise up and hang their monarch from the nearest tree.

Saints and Kings. Two categories of people that are best when dead.

Kellri and I are definately on the same page.

Locked for people sailing too close to religion.

As always, any of the admins/mods with better judgment than mine may unlock.