Forum > Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion

The merits of monarchy?

<< < (8/9) > >>

RPGObjects_chuck:
Monarchy's success or failure begins and ends with the sole possessor of power: the monarch.

When the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.

When the monarch is incompetent or weak, such as Henry VI of England or Nero of Rome, there is no worse form of government.

If you recall both British and Roman history, their movements away from Monarchy and toward Republicanism/Parliamentarianism came after bad monarchs (Tarquin and King John respectively).

Rather than ride the roller-coaster of good monarch/bad monarch, both governments sought a body to provide a check/balance (primarily) against a bad king or one who sought too much power.

Chuck

willpax:

--- Quote ---When the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.
--- End quote ---


I disagree. A competent and well-liked monarch usually ends up disempowering people through her or his competence, making people less able to govern themselves and more prone to not be able to steer the next monarch straight.

Ragnarok N Roll:

--- Quote from: Enkhidu ---I've got this friend who thinks the best form of gov't is a theocratic monarchy. The problem is that he's not a very, well, sharp knife if you know what I mean, and doesn't get the limitations inherent in that form of rulership.

Anyway, we've been round the proverbial bend on this one before. So many times, in fact that he's heard all my arguments.

So what's your take?
--- End quote ---


What's the old saw? "Never argue with a moron, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

If this guy is a french fry short of a happy meal as you say you're never going to convince him.

Vermicious Knid:

--- Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck ---Monarchy's success or failure begins and ends with the sole possessor of power: the monarch.

When the monarch is competent and well-liked, such as Henry V of England or Octavian in Rome, there is no better form of government.

When the monarch is incompetent or weak, such as Henry VI of England or Nero of Rome, there is no worse form of government.

If you recall both British and Roman history, their movements away from Monarchy and toward Republicanism/Parliamentarianism came after bad monarchs (Tarquin and King John respectively).

Rather than ride the roller-coaster of good monarch/bad monarch, both governments sought a body to provide a check/balance (primarily) against a bad king or one who sought too much power.

Chuck
--- End quote ---


So all we need to do is genetically engineer a perfect monarch. Sweet!

Enkhidu:

--- Quote from: Vermicious Knid ---So all we need to do is genetically engineer a perfect monarch. Sweet!
--- End quote ---


I hope that my friend never reads this thread. If he were to ever read this, he'd be crowing about it for a week.

2/3rds my ass.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version