SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

The merits of monarchy?

Started by Enkhidu, February 28, 2006, 02:10:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Enkhidu

February 28, 2006, 02:10:10 PM
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?
 

Knightcrawler

#1
February 28, 2006, 02:16:42 PM
Monarchy just doesn't work unless it is a historical.figurehead position like England.  And Theocracy in any form is bad.
Knightcrawler

"I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Worlds"

Dr_Avalanche

#2
February 28, 2006, 02:17:42 PM
Theocratic? Really?

I could make a (weak) argument for democratic monarchy, but theocratic?

No, sorry. That's just all sorts of dumb.

Varaj

#3
February 28, 2006, 02:24:43 PM
I am not found of the idea.  A technocracy would be best or a meritocracy after that.
Over all different governments server different needs.  What is best for one group in time will not be best for another.
  1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
   2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
   3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Elwood P. Dowd

#4
February 28, 2006, 02:27:17 PM
The merits of a Monarchy depend on the merits of the Monarch.  You friend sounds like a good and thoughtful person.  I admire him for not worshiping at the altar of Democracy, as is the current fashion.

You might want to check out Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Herman Hoppe
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765808684/sr=8-1/qid=1141154751/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7656910-2854258?%5Fencoding=UTF8
 

Megamieuwsel

#5
February 28, 2006, 02:35:49 PM
A monarchy could be a good system , as long as it's backed by a good-functioning form of feodalism.(Which , after all , is a crude form of a meritocracy.)
The only problem with that is that it's so easily abused and corrupted.

Insert Username Here

#6
February 28, 2006, 02:42:13 PM
With the right person at the head, Monarchy is one of the best systems of government. With the wrong person, it sucks.

I suppose, though, that's the case with any type of government, but I think with a Monarchy it's a little more...pronounced/obvious.
 

Knightcrawler

#7
February 28, 2006, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Insert Username HereWith the right person at the head, Monarchy is one of the best systems of government. With the wrong person, it sucks.

I suppose, though, that's the case with any type of government, but I think with a Monarchy it's a little more...pronounced/obvious.

And unlike some other forms of government no checks and balances.  Also its by blood not by merit or choice of populance.
Knightcrawler

"I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Worlds"

Dr_Avalanche

#8
February 28, 2006, 03:01:24 PM
The way to make a monarchy functional is of course to remove all power from the monarch.

It's not an entirely unusual arrangement - see UK, Sweden, Denmark etc.

theblackknight13

#9
February 28, 2006, 03:03:54 PM
Monarchy main use is to avoid blood civil wars, though they still slip through. Democracy is better at that, but requires the infrastructure to be built up first. At the time of it's height, monarchy was the best choice out their for anything resembling a large empire.
 

Insert Username Here

#10
February 28, 2006, 03:05:52 PM
Quote from: KnightcrawlerAnd unlike some other forms of government no checks and balances.  Also its by blood not by merit or choice of populance.
Not sure if you're agreeing or not, but...

Checks and balances, like anything in gov't, can be as much a help as a hinderance. They can keep good things from happening as well as bad.

See, if I were King of the World, it would be a truly great place, and I wouldn't have thousands of pissant beaurocrats gettin' in my way...
 

Knightcrawler

#11
February 28, 2006, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: Insert Username HereNot sure if you're agreeing or not, but...

Checks and balances, like anything in gov't, can be as much a help as a hinderance. They can keep good things from happening as well as bad.

See, if I were King of the World, it would be a truly great place, and I wouldn't have thousands of pissant beaurocrats gettin' in my way...

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Knightcrawler

"I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Worlds"

Insert Username Here

#12
February 28, 2006, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: KnightcrawlerPower Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Not with me at the head. :D
 

bondetamp

#13
February 28, 2006, 03:35:48 PM
What is a Theocratical Monarchy?

Would there be checks and balances? Would there be a parlament or senate?

Would there be a constitution?

Would it be like Iran, but with the rulership held within one family for generation after generation?
 

Enkhidu

#14
February 28, 2006, 03:39:32 PM
Well, as far as I can tell, my friend's ideal gov't is one with no real checks at all. Edicts from on high are enforced by a combination of the clergy's beauracracy and what passes for a police force.
 
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions