Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023?

[Rasheed]

Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023?

It is hard to get one's mind around the fact that monarchies still exist in 2023. Yes, most of these monarchies are constitutional, i.e., monarchies don't govern countries, yet regardless of this, having a monarchy is still a deeply unconscious and blatant manifestation of underdevelopment. As having a constitutional monarchy is still not okay, it must not be tolerated.

How come people in these countries don't come out and protest against it? Is it way too hard to apprehend that, in actuality, everyone has equal spiritual and metaphysical worth—it doesn't matter their ethnicity, gender, social status, wealth, etc.?

Monarchy is the epitome of inequality, stupidity, unconsciousness, and underdevelopment because it is fundamentally based on the premise that some people have more metaphysical or spiritual base worth than others. It is literally based on the false belief that some people, i.e., royal monarchs, are special; thereby, they must live in a lap of luxury, getting paid to exist—being entitled to fame, wealth, and luxury. WHAT A HOGWASH! Everyone has equal worth. Done. This is an indubitable point.

It won't be unreasonable to conclude that all monarchs and everyone who supports monarchy are literal fools. These are people with immensely undeveloped minds. Their minds are so underdeveloped that they cannot apprehend how monarchy is a made-up bullshit, and if right now we go ahead and take a random beggar on a street and make him or her a king or queen of whatever royal country, we would be equally correct because the specialty of so-called monarchs is complete made-up bullshit.

In the end, monarchy is a violation of the fundamental point of how ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Since all humans are created equal, nobody shall be denoted as a prince or princess. Such bullshit royal schemes are based on a fundamentally wrong premise—a premise that disrespects humanity and its potential for self-actualization. Anyone who states that some people have a higher base worth, i.e., they have more value (more metaphysical or spiritual value) than others is a fool—a moron whose mind is crippled.

Shame on every country that has a monarchy and its people! Fools. 

Shame on anyone who watches these monarchs and follows their bullshit. Such people are equal idiots as these royal families. Total fools. 

What do you think? How can monarchy still exist in 2023? What's the cause? What is the reason behind monarchies still existing? How can it end? Will there be a time in human history where all types of royalties will be completely abolished and all will realize that all so-called royals are monkeys, fools, idiots, liars, and con artists who are scamming humanity?

Edited November 19, 2023 by Rasheed

[Basman]

Monarchy still exist  today because there is no practical reason to dismantle it. They are important public diplomats and have a lot of soft power they use for advocating cultural exchange and peace. They are "cultural glue" that fosters a sense of union. There is a reason why 13 of the last 14 presidents have visited the queen. There is genuine value in a symbolic monarchy.

In Norway, the monarchy is democratically upheld. The parliament can vote at any time to dismantle it, but consistently vote not to. Wanting to dismantle monarchy without considering the value they provide to society is itself symbolic politics that accomplishes nothing. If there is a genuine appetite for a republic, then the monarchy's days are numbered.

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

1 hour ago, Rasheed said:

Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023?

It is hard to get one's mind around the fact that monarchies still exist in 2023. Yes, most of these monarchies are constitutional, i.e., monarchies don't govern countries, yet regardless of this, having a monarchy is still a deeply unconscious and blatant manifestation of underdevelopment. As having a constitutional monarchy is still not okay, it must not be tolerated.

How come people in these countries don't come out and protest against it? Is it way too hard to apprehend that, in actuality, everyone has equal spiritual and metaphysical worth—it doesn't matter their ethnicity, gender, social status, wealth, etc.?

Monarchy is the epitome of inequality, stupidity, unconsciousness, and underdevelopment because it is fundamentally based on the premise that some people have more metaphysical or spiritual base worth than others. It is literally based on the false belief that some people, i.e., royal monarchs, are special; thereby, they must live in a lap of luxury, getting paid to exist—being entitled to fame, wealth, and luxury. WHAT A HOGWASH! Everyone has equal worth. Done. This is an indubitable point.

It won't be unreasonable to conclude that all monarchs and everyone who supports monarchy are literal fools. These are people with immensely undeveloped minds. Their minds are so underdeveloped that they cannot apprehend how monarchy is a made-up bullshit, and if right now we go ahead and take a random beggar on a street and make him or her a king or queen of whatever royal country, we would be equally correct because the specialty of so-called monarchs is complete made-up bullshit.

In the end, monarchy is a violation of the fundamental point of how ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Since all humans are created equal, nobody shall be denoted as a prince or princess. Such bullshit royal schemes are based on a fundamentally wrong premise—a premise that disrespects humanity and its potential for self-actualization. Anyone who states that some people have a higher base worth, i.e., they have more value (more metaphysical or spiritual value) than others is a fool—a moron whose mind is crippled.

Shame on every country that has a monarchy and its people! Fools. 

Shame on anyone who watches these monarchs and follows their bullshit. Such people are equal idiots as these royal families. Total fools. 

What do you think? How can monarchy still exist in 2023? What's the cause? What is the reason behind monarchies still existing? How can it end? Will there be a time in human history where all types of royalties will be completely abolished and all will realize that all so-called royals are monkeys, fools, idiots, liars, and con artists who are scamming humanity?

   I think the majority of your argument is ethos based, and has too much misrepresentations of Monarchy, and by extension traditionalism, Conservativism, nationalism, and orthodoxy that is the backbone of the majority of western societies. Your talking points are strawman points, and stereotyping Monarchy. Yet the declining of birthrates in western societies due to egalitarianism, feminism, and capitalism run amok is reducing replacement numbers for western societies to sustain themselves in the future. Russia, USSR, and China's mau party's one child policy, as well as the first secularism countries to legalized abortions, are the first to see rhe negative effects. Most of western societies that embraced humanism and secularism have outsourced to foreign countries, mostly theocratic countries, that can reproduce their numbers.

   See the following thread for my arguments against feminism, egalitarianism and secularism run amok:

 

[Rasheed]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Monarchy still exist  today because there is no practical reason to dismantle it. They are important public diplomats and have a lot of soft power they use for advocating cultural exchange and peace. They are "cultural glue" that fosters a sense of union. There is a reason why 13 of the last 14 presidents have visited the queen. There is genuine value in a symbolic monarchy.

In Norway, the monarchy is democratically upheld. The parliament can vote at any time to dismantle it, but consistently vote not to. Wanting to dismantle monarchy without considering the value they provide to society is itself symbolic politics that accomplishes nothing. If there is a genuine appetite for a republic, then the monarchy's days are numbered.

No practical reason? Beyond practical reason is more fundamental: ethics, which says that all men are created equal

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rasheed

   I think the majority of your argument is ethos based, and has too much misrepresentations of Monarchy, and by extension traditionalism, Conservativism, nationalism, and orthodoxy that is the backbone of the majority of western societies. Your talking points are strawman points, and stereotyping Monarchy. Yet the declining of birthrates in western societies due to egalitarianism, feminism, and capitalism run amok is reducing replacement numbers for western societies to sustain themselves in the future. Russia, USSR, and China's mau party's one child policy, as well as the first secularism countries to legalized abortions, are the first to see rhe negative effects. Most of western societies that embraced humanism and secularism have outsourced to foreign countries, mostly theocratic countries, that can reproduce their numbers.

   See the following thread for my arguments against feminism, egalitarianism and secularism run amok:

 

Come on, are you seriously saying that emphasizing point of how: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, therefore monarchies shall not exist, is egalitarianism run a mock? Are you serious?

[Basman]

10 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

No practical reason? Beyond practical reason is more fundamental: ethics, which says that all men are created equal

Come on, are you seriously saying that emphasizing point of how: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, therefore monarchies shall not exist, is egalitarianism run a mock? Are you serious?

Two different things can be true at the same time. The ethics of a symbolic monarchy is way overblown.

[Rasheed]

1 minute ago, Basman said:

Two different things can be true at the same time. The ethics of a symbolic monarchy is way overblown.

That is not possible. Monarchy represents inequality and anti-egalitarianism. Its a lie played upon humanity. A fiction made up by chimps, run by chimps and perpetuated by them.

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Rasheed said:

That is not possible. Monarchy represents inequality and anti-egalitarianism. Its a lie played upon humanity. A fiction made up by chimps, run by chimps and perpetuated by them.

They are both inherently fictitious.

This kind of moralizing accomplishes nothing.

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

6 hours ago, Rasheed said:

No practical reason? Beyond practical reason is more fundamental: ethics, which says that all men are created equal

Come on, are you seriously saying that emphasizing point of how: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, therefore monarchies shall not exist, is egalitarianism run a mock? Are you serious?

   Yes, there are no practical reasons to dissolve the monarchy, as well as religions and traditional structures. Why? Because when the atheists, secularists and humanists within a revolutionist movement did just that, overthrown the Zars Russian Monarchy, and overthrew China's imperial traditional rulership, that created a power vacuum and lack of doctrine that needed to be filled, as the epistemic madness cannot be tolerated in the masses, therefore the smaller anti establishment groups took power violently and quickly proclaimed self determination, and hyper individualism, and new doctrines, which resulted in communist USSR and Mau's party taking over China, two examples of two countries that went secularist with disastrous, short term suffering and bloodshed.  

   Again, how am I wrong in my argumentation that secularism and humanism does not provide any sufficient moral framework that out competes against theocracy, and all other religious doctrine which formed the backbone of many other developing countries, governments, and politics today? How am I wrong in stating that the declining birthrates suffered by most western countries is tied to feminism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and secularists run amok, thinking they are so much better ethically than the theists when secularism and humanism has to source it's own justifications and morality from other ideologies. For example, when westernized countries suffer severe birthrate decline, when rates are below the threshold of replacement numbers for human reproduction within that western secularist country, that quickly follows an increase in immigration from other countries and cultures which are mostly conservative/traditional values dominant, and have a religious and theocratic indoctrination and can reproduce within it's country, how can you think secularism is good for human flourishing, and a good ethical framework? When Secularists and humanists, as well as atheists allow stage green post modernism and relativism to run amok, to degrade morality, and allow group think and blind following of stage green ideologies, and the result is severe birthrate decline and high divorce rates and break up of the nuclear family, and an increase in single parent and other parent household other than a mother and father household, how is that a good ethical framework for human flourishing?

Edited November 19, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Rasheed]

17 hours ago, Basman said:

They are both inherently fictitious.

This kind of moralizing accomplishes nothing.

What do you mean by both being inherently fictitious? If underscoring the fictitiousness is moralizing that accomplishes nothing, following such logic, it is okay to return to slavery, as being anti-slavery is equally fictitious as being pro-slavery—come on...

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Rasheed

[Rasheed]

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rasheed

   Yes, there are no practical reasons to dissolve the monarchy, as well as religions and traditional structures. Why? Because when the atheists, secularists and humanists within a revolutionist movement did just that, overthrown the Zars Russian Monarchy, and overthrew China's imperial traditional rulership, that created a power vacuum and lack of doctrine that needed to be filled, as the epistemic madness cannot be tolerated in the masses, therefore the smaller anti establishment groups took power violently and quickly proclaimed self determination, and hyper individualism, and new doctrines, which resulted in communist USSR and Mau's party taking over China, two examples of two countries that went secularist with disastrous, short term suffering and bloodshed.  

   Again, how am I wrong in my argumentation that secularism and humanism does not provide any sufficient moral framework that out competes against theocracy, and all other religious doctrine which formed the backbone of many other developing countries, governments, and politics today? How am I wrong in stating that the declining birthrates suffered by most western countries is tied to feminism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and secularists run amok, thinking they are so much better ethically than the theists when secularism and humanism has to source it's own justifications and morality from other ideologies. For example, when westernized countries suffer severe birthrate decline, when rates are below the threshold of replacement numbers for human reproduction within that western secularist country, that quickly follows an increase in immigration from other countries and cultures which are mostly conservative/traditional values dominant, and have a religious and theocratic indoctrination and can reproduce within it's country, how can you think secularism is good for human flourishing, and a good ethical framework? When Secularists and humanists, as well as atheists allow stage green post modernism and relativism to run amok, to degrade morality, and allow group think and blind following of stage green ideologies, and the result is severe birthrate decline and high divorce rates and break up of the nuclear family, and an increase in single parent and other parent household other than a mother and father household, how is that a good ethical framework for human flourishing?

The problem with such an answer lies in a failure to distinguish between content and structure. Using the example of the Russian Monarchy and China's traditional rulership is a flawed example. In actuality, what occurred with such a change was only content-wise different—the underlying structure and level of development behind the content change remained the same. The validity of the prior point lies in the appreciation of how, in 1918, Russia was the strongest Christian country ever—the dominance of Rasputin a couple years before that was a clear example of this. Yet, in two days, an entire country somehow became atheist and secular.

Such an answer thinks that Soviet Russia and China were secular, atheist, and egalitarian... Yet, nothing can be far off the mark. Soviet China and Russia were deeply, deeply stage Blue religious. Yes, indeed, they were religious—structurally religious. Concurrently, both Soviet Russia and China were monarchies—structural monarchies. In Russia, the dictatorship of the tsar got exchanged with the dictatorship of the Red Tsar: Stalin—the God of Christians got changed with the God of Lenin. The trinity of Christians got changed by the trinity of Soviets: Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, illustrating how Soviet China and Russia were deeply monarchic and religious; therefore, using them as an example of why monarchy must remain and there is no practical reason why monarchy must be abolished is nonsensical to its core. The failures of Soviet Russia and China are failures of monarchy, anti-egilitarianism, and stage-blue religion—not a failure of secularism and humanism because neither Soviet Russia nor China were securalist and humanistic countries—they were deeply monarchic and theistic, honoring the gods of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, allowing their monarchy to dominate. To say nothing of how the Red Tsar materialized in the form of Joseph Stalin is one of the most blatant examples in the entire history of humanity of the tyranny of monarchy that lasted 29 years straight.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Rasheed

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

44 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

The problem with such an answer lies in a failure to distinguish between content and structure. Using the example of the Russian Monarchy and China's traditional rulership is a flawed example. In actuality, what occurred with such a change was only content-wise different—the underlying structure and level of development behind the content change remained the same. The validity of the prior point lies in the appreciation of how, in 1918, Russia was the strongest Christian country ever—the dominance of Rasputin a couple years before that was a clear example of this. Yet, in two days, an entire country somehow became atheist and secular.

Such an answer thinks that Soviet Russia and China were secular, atheist, and egalitarian... Yet, nothing can be far off the mark. Soviet China and Russia were deeply, deeply stage Blue religious. Yes, indeed, they were religious—structurally religious. Concurrently, both Soviet Russia and China were monarchies—structural monarchies. In Russia, the dictatorship of the tsar got exchanged with the dictatorship of the Red Tsar: Stalin—the God of Christians got changed with the God of Lenin. The trinity of Christians got changed by the trinity of Soviets: Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, illustrating how Soviet China and Russia were deeply monarchic and religious; therefore, using them as an example of why monarchy must remain and there is no practical reason why monarchy must be abolished is nonsensical to its core. The failures of Soviet Russia and China are failures of monarchy, anti-egilitarianism, and stage-blue religion—not a failure of secularism and humanism because neither Soviet Russia nor China were securalist and humanistic countries—they were deeply monarchic and theistic, honoring the gods of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, allowing their monarchy to dominate. To say nothing of how the Red Tsar materialized in the form of Joseph Stalin is one of the most blatant examples in the entire history of humanity of the tyranny of monarchy that lasted 29 years straight.

   How is my argument a failure to distinguish content and structure? Am I wrong, or is history wrong in describing the secularism revolution within Russia which leads to the USSR, and Mau's party taking over China? After these countries had a bloody coup to overthrow the traditional theocracy ruling these countries, the new god then became the ruler and the freedom fighters, the new secularism, humanism and atheism of Stalin and Mau, figures who hate religion and theocracy, and wanted to rule and establish new norms and new ethical principles from secularism and atheism. Both were deep stage blue religious, until revolutionary have overthrown them and tried to impose arbitrary moral and ethical codes to the entire population to follow.

   Whether god is real or a fictional is another seperate argument we can have, but regardless it's afterwards, when we have to collective construct social norms, consensus over which moral feamework for society to use, whifh has the more robust versions: theocracy or secularism? Religion or atheism? Patriarchy or feminism? Authoritarianism or egalitarianism? Which moral and ethical system is more robust and stood the test of time, and is beneficial for human flourishing?

   Whifh is better for human flourishing: secularism and atheism that has no intrinsic moral systems, and allows post modernist ideology to muddy traditional gender roles and biological sex allows corruption of definitions of a man and woman, that me can get pregnant? That affirms transgenderism, homosexuality and other ideologies like egalitarianism, feminism and multiculturalism, when it's mere group think and reproductive dead ends antithetical to human flourishing, the same group think and dogmatism that atheists and secularists complain about? Or religions and theocracy, that encourages marriage, raising of a nuclear family, and are not reproductive dead ends, and offers standards of human decency that hyper stage greens do not have, that actually has the basis for himan flourishing that secularism and humanism, in its ideological hubris declares it has? Plus, again majority of westernized secularist countries with egalitarianism and feminism cannot reproduce natively to replenish replacement numbers to sustain themselves, which makes them source from foreign countries which have theocracy and Conservativism as it's doctrine, so why is it that secularism and atheistic countries, claiming the moral high ground, having to source from theocratic countries to replenish the dwindling population and decline of birthrates?

   What about egalitarianism? Are men trully created equal? Are women created equal? Are children and babies created equal? Are the elderly created equally? Is technology created equally? Are wars, famines and diseases created equally? Are careers created equally? Are ideologies created equally?

Edited November 20, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed  Another problem with egalitarianism is that if folliwed blindly, egalitarianism assumes equality in all men, women and children, and even objects. Therefore, how can we determine the utile between two people, or two objects, when egalitarianism equalizes the valhe providedz flatten the value such that it is equal? And why should we care at all when the valie provided by people and objects are of equal values, and the hierarchy of usefulness is a flat plane?

[Rasheed]

8 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rasheed

   How is my argument a failure to distinguish content and structure? Am I wrong, or is history wrong in describing the secularism revolution within Russia which leads to the USSR, and Mau's party taking over China? After these countries had a bloody coup to overthrow the traditional theocracy ruling these countries, the new god then became the ruler and the freedom fighters, the new secularism, humanism and atheism of Stalin and Mau, figures who hate religion and theocracy, and wanted to rule and establish new norms and new ethical principles from secularism and atheism. Both were deep stage blue religious, until revolutionary have overthrown them and tried to impose arbitrary moral and ethical codes to the entire population to follow.

   Whether god is real or a fictional is another seperate argument we can have, but regardless it's afterwards, when we have to collective construct social norms, consensus over which moral feamework for society to use, whifh has the more robust versions: theocracy or secularism? Religion or atheism? Patriarchy or feminism? Authoritarianism or egalitarianism? Which moral and ethical system is more robust and stood the test of time, and is beneficial for human flourishing?

   Whifh is better for human flourishing: secularism and atheism that has no intrinsic moral systems, and allows post modernist ideology to muddy traditional gender roles and biological sex allows corruption of definitions of a man and woman, that me can get pregnant? That affirms transgenderism, homosexuality and other ideologies like egalitarianism, feminism and multiculturalism, when it's mere group think and reproductive dead ends antithetical to human flourishing, the same group think and dogmatism that atheists and secularists complain about? Or religions and theocracy, that encourages marriage, raising of a nuclear family, and are not reproductive dead ends, and offers standards of human decency that hyper stage greens do not have, that actually has the basis for himan flourishing that secularism and humanism, in its ideological hubris declares it has? Plus, again majority of westernized secularist countries with egalitarianism and feminism cannot reproduce natively to replenish replacement numbers to sustain themselves, which makes them source from foreign countries which have theocracy and Conservativism as it's doctrine, so why is it that secularism and atheistic countries, claiming the moral high ground, having to source from theocratic countries to replenish the dwindling population and decline of birthrates?

   What about egalitarianism? Are men trully created equal? Are women created equal? Are children and babies created equal? Are the elderly created equally? Is technology created equally? Are wars, famines and diseases created equally? Are careers created equally? Are ideologies created equally?

I don’t think you understood what I’ve wrote, as you have repeated your previous response, still saying that Soviets were atheists—a conclusion that is a result of failing to distinguish between content and structure—as a result prior conclusion fails to apprehend how Soviets were deeply theistic—structurally, only content was different. Thereby, their failure is an argument for why monarchy must be abolished, not vice versa, as Soviet Union is an example of authoritarianism, monarchy and theism run a mock. 

[Rasheed]

6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rasheed  Another problem with egalitarianism is that if folliwed blindly, egalitarianism assumes equality in all men, women and children, and even objects. Therefore, how can we determine the utile between two people, or two objects, when egalitarianism equalizes the valhe providedz flatten the value such that it is equal? And why should we care at all when the valie provided by people and objects are of equal values, and the hierarchy of usefulness is a flat plane?

Egalitarianism, the way I am using it in current context, states that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”—it doesn’t state that everyone is literally equal in a sense that there’s no physical difference between Shaquille O’Neal and Joe Rogan, illustrating how there are legit differences that must be honored. Concurrently, it is not flat-land notion, or anti-hierarchy notion that forces one into aperspectival madness (to use Wilber’s term). 
 

Egilitarianism that boils down to “all men being created equal” thereby, monarchy must be abolished because it is based on a false premise of someone having a higher metaphysical value than another—does NOT lead to flat land, or aperspectival madness, because as Ken Wilber explained, there exist base, extrinsic and intrinsic values. Egalitarianism suggests that everyone has equal base i.e. spiritual and metaphysical value, no matter the differences in extrinsic and intrinsic values, illustrating how it is immune to flat land, heeps, anti-hierarchy and post-modern stupidity.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Rasheed

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

20 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

I don’t think you understood what I’ve wrote, as you have repeated your previous response, still saying that Soviets were atheists—a conclusion that is a result of failing to distinguish between content and structure—as a result prior conclusion fails to apprehend how Soviets were deeply theistic—structurally, only content was different. Thereby, their failure is an argument for why monarchy must be abolished, not vice versa, as Soviet Union is an example of authoritarianism, monarchy and theism run a mock. 

   I understand that you have a lot of cliams, with little justification for why. Again, tbe Soviet union and Lenin overthrew their monarchy, a theist structured power, because lenin and Stalin stopped believing in a god, and don't like that theocracy and tradition holds all the power in their country. How am I wrong again? Russua and China's revolutionary is basically a deep denial of god and theocracy, and secularism and atheism pretending to have the moral superiority even when such revolution lead to massive deaths. Can you actually acknowledge this point, or are you just going to dodge and repeat this content versus structure point? BTW, just because the USSR and Mau's party are theocratic, 'authoritarian', and 'monarchical'(which I highly doubt because if true then why overthrow their monarchs and traditional ruling class when they themselves share equal values to them?), doesn't mean that China and Russia are equal to other stage blue countries. Stage blue also has nationalism and patriotism, which also has to borrow and source from, you guessed it, theocracy and religions!! So the nationalists who are secularists and atheists overthrew the traditional religious ruling class to self determine their own ethical codes, which again look at the fallout of that. That fallout was also the start of more secularism in Russua for example, and it being the first country to allow abortions and state divorce, has experienced the most severe birthrate decline ever in all other westernized countries. China's 1 child policy and legal abortion also played a rule in it's birthrate decline. Jaoan and south Korea also suffer decline in birthrates. How can you argue for humanism, secularism, egalitarianism and feminism when those ideologies you argue for are also causing the birthrate decline?

Edited November 20, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

19 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

Egalitarianism, the way I am using it in current context, states that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”—it doesn’t state that everyone is literally equal in a sense that there’s no physical difference between Shaquille O’Neal and Joe Rogan, illustrating how there are legit differences that must be honored. Concurrently, it is not flat-land notion, or anti-hierarchy notion that forces one into aperspectival madness (to use Wilber’s term). 
 

Egilitarianism that boils down to “all men being created equal” thereby, monarchy must be abolished because it is based on a false premise of someone having a higher metaphysical value than another—does NOT lead to flat land, or aperspectival madness, because as Ken Wilber explained, there exist base, extrinsic and intrinsic values. Egalitarianism suggests that everyone has equal base i.e. spiritual and metaphysical value, no matter the differences in extrinsic and intrinsic values, illustrating how it is immune to flat land, heeps, anti-hierarchy and post-modern stupidity.

   From my perspective that all sounds like post rationalization from the majority of followers that blindly and dogmatic believe in egalitarianism and secularism, and rationalism of why secularism and egalitarianism should exist, because monarchy bad. Just monarchy bad bad bad, yet a good chunk of human history was in kingdoms and feudalism that was the backbone of most countries development.

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed  Also, going back to your main argument for why we should abolish monarchy, how are you going to deal with the resulting high inflation? Yes, you release a lot of wealth and money from the royal families and monarchy, yet that big increase in funds of printing paper money and producing too many coins will devalue the currency. How are you going to manage the huge financial increase in economy?

[gettoefl]

monarchs are ways of claiming civilization and organization

for outsiders they encourage tourism and reverence

for insiders they provide unity and patriotism

they work to put the country in a good light

they are public employees with lots of trappings and lots of stress

prisoners for life unless you snag a nice bride like megan and flee to california 

Edited November 20, 2023 by gettoefl

[Danioover9000]

@gettoefl

6 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

monarchs are ways of claiming civilization and organization

for outsiders they encourage tourism and reverence

for insiders they provide unity and patriotism

they work to put the country in a good light

they are public employees with lots of trappings and lots of stress

prisoners for life unless you snag a nice bride like megan and flee to california 

   I'm not even that far right, I'm conservative moderate, and sometimes depending on other factors I lean left or am agnostic. I might even grant the abolition of monarchy, but I'm just asking how would the OP deal with potential fallouts from abolishing monarchy?

   Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you and others get to abolish big pharma and other big companies. Okay, how are yku going to deal with the major and minor issues that follow for society at latge?

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed  Also, since you asked a sincere question, I gave a sincere argument against that and your refutation of that was insincere at best, deceitful and bad faith at worst. If you cannot argue and defend your worldview with a sincere argument, why ask a sincere question you cannot honestly defend?