Is monarchism a silly idea?

[vindicated erudite]

discuss... I would like to hear people's thoughts around reverting to monarchies in the 21st century.

[Ulax]

@vindicated erudite To me, I think it would depend on what sort of monarchy someone was proposing. I don't think I'd want any but I think I would more strongly disagree with some forms compared to others.

I'm mostly against it because of the risk of tyranny. A consequence of monarchies tending to have much power in the hands of few.

Also, because I think monarchies normalize a culture of strong class hierarchy. Which entails members of upper classes being seen as superior in nature to lower classes. Consequently, this risks an othering/ dehumanizing of lower classes, which can lead to the legitimization and normalization of oppression, exploitation and subjection of the lower class.

What do you think OP?

[vindicated erudite]

6 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@vindicated erudite To me, I think it would depend on what sort of monarchy someone was proposing. I don't think I'd want any but I think I would more strongly disagree with some forms compared to others.

I'm mostly against it because of the risk of tyranny. A consequence of monarchies tending to have much power in the hands of few.

Also, because I think monarchies normalize a culture of strong class hierarchy. Which entails members of upper classes being seen as superior in nature to lower classes. Consequently, this risks an othering/ dehumanizing of lower classes, which can lead to the legitimization and normalization of oppression, exploitation and subjection of the lower class.

What do you think OP?

I am undecided. I just think democracy is not fit for purpose.

[Ulax]

3 minutes ago, vindicated erudite said:

I just think democracy is not fit for purpose.

@vindicated erudite Why do you hold that opinion?

[vindicated erudite]

18 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@vindicated erudite Why do you hold that opinion?

The masses are ignorant, stupid, and shortsighted. The masses rely on instinctual and tribalistic thinking to make political decisions. This makes them susceptible to demagogues and thus bad choices. Brexit is proof of this. 

Democracies disadvantage minorities.

They don't get anything done and constantly elect bad leaders who do not have enough time to get anything done. 

Democracies turn into oligarchies, which turn into monarchies, in my opinion. 

These are just a few reasons I can think of. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by vindicated erudite

[Sucuk Ekmek]

5 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

 

Democracies disadvantage minorities.

 

I think democracies disadvantage majority. Monarchy any better? depends

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

The masses are ignorant, stupid, and shortsighted. The masses rely on instinctual and tribalistic thinking to make political decisions. This makes them susceptible to demagogues and thus bad choices. Brexit is proof of this. 

Democracies disadvantage minorities.

They don't get anything done and constantly elect bad leaders who do not have enough time to get anything done. 

Democracies turn into oligarchies, which turn into monarchies, in my opinion. 

These are just a few reasons I can think of. 

I can find people on every side who think like that.

[Danioover9000]

@vindicated erudite

21 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

discuss... I would like to hear people's thoughts around reverting to monarchies in the 21st century.

   Not possible to do so willingly, to regress developments like that based on many developmental factors like stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, states of consciousness, ego development, life experiences, other lines of development in life, history, economics and societies, ideological indoctrination, grooming and gaslighting from upbringing, self biases and preferences. Maybe after WW3, when the majority of the super power countries wiped out by nuclear warfare, few pockets of humanity survived in small islands, in that world situation humanity would be set back 10,000 years in the past maybe, then monarchies might develop as a worldly necessity and par for the course.

[Roy]

People basically worship celebrities, politicians, athletes and personalities today. So monarchism isn't as far-fetched a relic as people like to think it is anyways.

[Spiral]

I live in a monarchy it’s alright. But I take it you don’t mean a democratic one?

[Chadders]

It’s an outdated form of governance based on elitism. It’s not just bad for those of us who feel we have a stake in society and want to shape it but also for those that are born into it.

You can just imagine how it distorts your view of yourself and the world and thus your ability to relate if you were born into wealth and privilege like that

For less developed societies there are different perspectives but as someone living in a more socially developed society (relatively), I would hate it. Disempowering 

So no definitely do not revert to a monarchy! 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Chadders

[vindicated erudite]

On 07/08/2023 at 5:14 PM, Spiral said:

I live in a monarchy it’s alright. But I take it you don’t mean a democratic one?

No preference. I want to start a discussion on all types of monarchies

[Spiral]

@vindicated erudite While (actual) republicanism is quite big in my country and is a topic of debate. It’s not some people particularly care much about. 

It gives the women something to gossip about. It creates tourism, Germans love that shit.

I don’t envy them at all, but I’m sure I has it’s perks.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Spiral

[sholomar]

On 8/5/2023 at 10:21 PM, vindicated erudite said:

The masses are ignorant, stupid, and shortsighted. The masses rely on instinctual and tribalistic thinking to make political decisions. This makes them susceptible to demagogues and thus bad choices. Brexit is proof of this. 

Democracies disadvantage minorities.

They don't get anything done and constantly elect bad leaders who do not have enough time to get anything done. 

Democracies turn into oligarchies, which turn into monarchies, in my opinion. 

These are just a few reasons I can think of. 

The US constitution was designed to prevent this, but it's only as good as people's willingness to enforce it. Human nature (and looking back at history) shows that opportunists who support collectivist, authoritarian ideologies which are worse than "mass democracy" will try to gain power when they can, and this is why cultures tend to go through cycles of Plato and Aristotle.

Bad times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create bad times. The circle of causality is complete. You will never have peaceful, blissful representative democratic republics where power and wealth are distributed in a common sense matter forever. Something will always upset the apple cart. Typically it's the concentration of wealth like is happening in the west today where corporations and governments are buying up more and more farmland, residential real estate among other things, or the fact that people become victims of their own success and become soft, but in dictatorships like the Chinese CCP, it's just an unusually bad leader that gains power (Xi) who subscribes to theories (Mao) that don't work.  It's not even Xi's fault though. He was a product of his childhood and the way his father and subsequently he was treated by the Chinese Communist Party of that era. Again the A leads to B leads to C causality factor at play.... new dictators like to clean house to keep things in check, and Xi's father was among one of the victims.

Of course this thread is about monarchies, not dictatorships. The queen of England is more a celebrity figure at this point. Ruling because of family bloodline is just another form of authoritarian dictatorship if no checks and balances are in place but Britain's system is different compared to say North Korea.   Should we have caste systems where one's social status is determined at birth?  A human being should be able to advanced based on individual merit, individual qualifications, and individual achievement. This is healthy. Any system that pushes equity, collectivism, or social status based on bloodline, is by it's nature inferior. Systems like this can justify their oppression of whoever they want "for the greater good" of whatever dipshit is calling the shots.

Like I said in the other thread, the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'

Edited August 15, 2023 by sholomar

[caspex]

Monarchy is only better than Democracy when the leader is conscious and intelligent enough to know what they are doing. Sure, you could find a person like that once, but there's no guarantee that you'll be able to find another, and another as time goes on. In the long term, Democracy is better in today's world where the mass consciousness is slowly growing. As it grows, so does the quality of the Democracy. This is just my thoughts with below average knowledge on the subject of governments.

[Buck Edwards]

Something like meritocracy within the democracy is better. 

Although it lends to discrimination based on intelligence. 

You cannot want intellectual accuracy as well as moral uprightness at the same time. Both do not  mix. It's like oil and water. 

You'll always have one at the expense of the other. Mutually exclusive. 

Democracy is right morally. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Buck Edwards

[jdc7733]

@Buck Edwards you could have a system where people get paid, even if they don't work but get more for working. If you think the government doesn't have enough money to do that, work out, roughly how much tax your country gets from income tax per month @Swarnim elections are a fix. The vast majority of people you speak to in Britain, hate the Tories.

[jdc7733]

@sholomar how do you measure a person's contribution to society? If we got rid of industry other than for food and housing we probably wouldn't have many of the problems we have.

Edited August 22, 2023 by jdc7733

[jdc7733]

@Schizophonia no political beliefs, no problem.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

23 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Something like meritocracy within the democracy is better. 

Although it lends to discrimination based on intelligence. 

 I am up for discrimination based on skill. But who knows the better ontology?