Quote: (04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:
He is not ready, willing and able. He is able, he is ready, but not willing.
It is a character flaw of the monarch, and you already knew this.
It is quite common for monarchs to have character flaws, of this sort or of another. Any student of history knows this. I wonder why you do not point that out?
As you can see in my response to Samsaeu, I specifically agreed that monarchs can have flaws. After all it's a
monarch.
Also the Belgian king does not use his reserve powers from lack of will, but due to the consequences. Just because they are written doesn't mean he has the power to use them routinely. One man cannot act unilaterally against the collective will of the political class or the electorate -- he will simply be swatted aside. Reserve powers can only be used without constitutional backlash if they are used to resolve constitutional disputes themselves. A king restoring those powers to routine use could only be done with the support of other classes.
Quote: (04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:
Suggesting monarchy is suggesting a pretty lie. It is begging for Deus ex Machina in the classical meaning of the word. In general it is a terrible idea, and we can see this immediately because the average length between wars in monarchy is about ten years. Whereas Americans have not been drafted for eighty.
Reactionaries basically want "some superhero" to save them. A monarch. It is the worst form of slave morality. Instead of actually solving problems a reactionary will ask for a monarch to solve them for him. Maybe next we will send prayers in the hope that girls will take us out on dates. Utterly utopian.
This is a very dishonest response. I have gone to lengths to explain why the incentives of a monarch are different to those of a democrat, and why those different incentives are creating the difference between the Saudis and the Germans vis-a-vis the migrant invasion. In response you just dismiss that by saying "I think a monarch will be a god in a box or a superhero". You also put "wars every ten years" along side "we haven't been drafted in 80", expected me not to notice that trick. How many
drafting wars happened under monarchy versus democracy? Or, how many
conflicts of any kind (including bombing Serbia, Libya, Iraq etc) happen under democracy versus monarchy (including the very limited 'wars between princes')? If democracy is better than monarchy under the current circumstances, it will be due to facts and reasons, not emotion.
Quote: (04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:
Or any other number of obvious reasons, such as life expectancy, literacy, health, happiness, money, social mobility, power, pick a metric.
Also very dishonest. You know full well that correlation doesn't imply causation. Given that 100+ years have passed against the backdrop of technological advancement, democracy will always win by that logical fallacy. Unless of course someone with similar dishonesty contrasted UAE to ancient democratic Greece.
Quote: (04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:
Moreover, this entire thread discusses the history of European Civilization. I will remind you that europeans have ancient non-monarchal traditions, for example republican Rome, domocratic athens, republican venice. It is the singly unique place in the world where it was entirely infrequent for there to be non-monarchal societies. Suggesting monarchy is the answer is, in a very deep way, suggesting european government has always been wrong.
Most of European history, and in fact most of all human history, has been based on social hierarchy, usually with a monarch at the top. Everyone instinctively knows this: when people think history they think kings, pharaohs, czars, emperors etc. It is true that there have been fairly long-lived and successful republics, such as the Roman Republic. I don't argue that. I'm arguing that the current social malaise
is caused by democracy, would not happen in any sustained and widespread way under monarchy, and thus
nowadays we need more monarchy and less democracy if Europe is going to survive.
Quote: (04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:
There is a deep connection between struggle and strength/virtue. The west lacks struggle. If we do not solve this problem today then the next empire will fall as well. All of the work men do for the future of their children will only see those same children grow weak. It is extremely important, very hard, ancient, deeply related to human nature, and some change of government is so far away from an answer to this that we can only in the most generous sense describe it as utopian.
It is difficult to reconcile this paragraph with the previous one implying monarchy is worse because there is more war. To link your reasoning: monarchy creates more war, war is struggle (probably the highest form humans ever undertake), struggle is good because it creates strength and virtue, and thus monarchy is good. And yet you say monarchy is not good. Which point will you yield on?