why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?

[trish]

Go back and read my post carefully. You managed to miss all the points.

[Wizzer]

What points did I miss? did you check out the sites I posted?

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

[trish]

Here’s my post again:

Not all families are monarchies. My family isn't. There are and have always been successful families in which father and mother are equals and children are not ruled but cared for and given a voice in family affairs, a voice that grows with the child's maturity. I know families where children have no curfews, go to sleep when they're sleepy, eat when they're hungry and do their homework when they want to. My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a "monarchy."

Notice how the argument is integrated. The first statement (“Not all families are monarchies.”) is neither a rebuttal nor a confirmation of your declaration that the family is the foundation of civilization and the “best” (by some unstated measure) are monarchies. By itself, it merely a statement of fact which you concede by going even further to claim most families are not monarchies. There is no attempt, at this point in the argument to “escape” anything. Your first response is therefore a bit puzzling, don’t you agree?

Let’s skip for a moment to the third statement of my argument: “I know families where children have no curfews, go to sleep when they're sleepy, eat when they're hungry and do their homework when they want to.” Another simple statement of fact. It is obviously consistent with your premise that families are the foundation of civilization. So again your response is puzzling.

To my final observation (“My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a ‘monarchy’.”) is not a statement about how families should be internally organized (which is how you took it and how you responded to it). It’s merely a factual observation that refutes the hypothesis that the only way to have happy, healthy, intelligent, and successful family relationships is through a monarchical structure.

All of these points you missed and I’m not convinced you even see them now.

Now to your theory. You claim that the type of rule that best typifies the family is monarchy

…type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY.

You’ve already conceded that families are typically not monarchies. So I can only assume that you mean the best families are typically monarchies. However, you have suggested no measure of term, “best”. I seen many miserable monarchial families and I’ve seen some happy ones. It would seem the monarchical structure is no guarantee of the “best” that one can hope for in a family.

[Wizzer]

Sorry "trish" for misinterparating you statement. I fully understand what you are saying.

trish wrote:

Not all families are monarchies. My family isn't.

I thought this meant heriditary titled family head of states not the structure of your family.

trish wrote:

To my final observation (“My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a ‘monarchy’.”) is not a statement about how families should be internally organized (which is how you took it and how you responded to it). It’s merely a factual observation that refutes the hypothesis that the only way to have happy, healthy, intelligent, and successful family relationships is through a monarchical structure.

I'm not going to deny your argument. However there are many studies that show that families that have a hierachical monarchal structure (Father = monarch, mother = consort, children = subjects) tend to be the most happiest and successful of families.

trish wrote:

Quote:
…type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY.


You’ve already conceded that families are typically not monarchies. So I can only assume that you mean the best families are typically monarchies. However, you have suggested no measure of term, “best”. I seen many miserable monarchial families and I’ve seen some happy ones. It would seem the monarchical structure is no guarantee of the “best” that one can hope for in a family.

What I meant by that statement is how to run a country and a family. You see monarchies are ran in a family way. Usually from monarch to eldest son and so on but there are exceptions. Families and Monarchies goes hand in hand and both represent what the foundation of civilisation should be. Countries/States are not clubs and should never be ran as clubs. It is o.k. to vote for a president of a club but not a country/state. You could say that people are not born anything. However we are all born something e.g. with a title, with defects etc.
Do you have any younger siblings? Well I do. I'm the eldest of my siblings which gives me a title of Eldest child and sibling. With this title I'm responsible for my younger siblings. I have to take care of them, protect them, support them etc till they are old enough to look after themselves and still I will be there for them and the rest of my family.
I know all to well that a happy family doesn't have to be a nuclear family. There are allsorts of families e.g. single parent families ( From which I was raised, ) same sex couple families, etc. Neither will I justify abusive parents. Like I said though there are many studies that show that families that have a hierachical monarchal structure (Father = monarch, mother = consort, children = subjects) tend to be the most happiest and successful of families.
"Trish" I'll let you in on a little secret. There can never be any type of love between "equals" because of the differences in people. For example man & woman. We are equal in so far that we are both human but that's where it ends. Men are better at certain things e.g. map reading, leadership skills etc. Women are better at certain things e.g. arguments, reading people etc. Yet without eachother nothing could ever truly get done. Sexist probably, truthful 100%. You came with some good points yet again "trish." Although I sense that you don't truly care how a country/state is ruled so long as it is ruled right. Maybe I'm wrong.
Please tell me if I have misread your statements.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

[trish]

I know you think family is the foundation of civilization. The meaning of that proposition has yet to be unpacked. What are the homologous parts of the metaphorical aspects of your assertion? What functions exactly does the concept of family (or perhaps families themselves) play in the “foundation” of civilization? What is a “foundation” in this context? You don’t have a coherent and understandable hypothesis if you don’t fill in some of the gaps.

But all the above is an aside. What I was and am concerned with in the last couple of posts is your other assertion; the assertion that

families that have a hierachical monarchal structure (Father = monarch, mother = consort, children = subjects) tend to be the most happiest and successful of families.

This proposition simply doesn’t fit with the facts of my experience, (here is the place where you can reference some of those “many studies”) nor does it fit with the expectations of reason. The happiest families with successful and happy children, in my experience, are those which make important decisions by consensus.

Where should go on vacation? What car should we buy? Should Dad take the job offer at the University two States away?

Many families (including mine) have made these sorts of decisions by consensus. Many times everyone is happy with the consensus. Sometimes the consensus is not easy in coming. But when the latter circumstance arises people will eventually see reason, or negotiate a compromise so that ultimately everyone consents to the choice that was made. This is not a democratic model. There’s no voting. It family organization based on consensus. I do not recommend it for nations and state. But right now, we’re talking about families and not states. When everyone consents to a decision, there might be some disappointed people, but everyone came to the same decision and there is little room for resentments to arise.

I take it from you that in monarchical households the father has the final word in these decisions. A loving farther may listen to and weigh the reasons and desires of his family but he does not ultimately seek for their agreement; the decision is his and his alone. One can easily see how resentments can arise under such an arrangement. One can also easily see that if Dad is stupid such an arrangement can be detrimental in other ways to the family. I think the growing resentments would be poisonous. I personally, would find it very difficult to be a member of such a family. I would never marry someone who wished to rule the roost and didn’t accept my thinking as equal to his.

As far as family goes, I don’t care how beneficent the “father” is and how well he “rules”, if he indeed intends to rule, then he won’t be ruling me.

[Wizzer]

trish wrote:

I know you think family is the foundation of civilization. The meaning of that proposition has yet to be unpacked. What are the homologous parts of the metaphorical aspects of your assertion? What functions exactly does the concept of family (or perhaps families themselves) play in the “foundation” of civilization? What is a “foundation” in this context? You don’t have a coherent and understandable hypothesis if you don’t fill in some of the gaps.

I would have thought what I have said was quite self explanitory. It is hard to explain why family is the bases/foundation of society/civilisation but here goes. Ultimately your moral values, the way you interact with other people etc comes from your family upbringing. I would explain more of it but someone of your intelligence should understand the importance of the family unit for society/civilisation.

trish wrote:

This proposition simply doesn’t fit with the facts of my experience, (here is the place where you can reference some of those “many studies”) nor does it fit with the expectations of reason. The happiest families with successful and happy children, in my experience, are those which make important decisions by consensus.

Where should go on vacation? What car should we buy? Should Dad take the job offer at the University two States away?

I'm sure it doesn't fit with your experience and as for the references on the "many studies" I'll get back to you with them soon enough.
You cant get a consensus on every action of the family. Somethings just have to be done on the "spur of the moment" or to accomplish the "greater good" of the family. Let's take the job scenario. What if the "father's" current job pays poorly, the house he lives in is ran down and he can't support his family of X amount of kids one being a 17 year old with his salary. He's done a consensus and they have most of his family has decided to stay. Are you honestly saying that would be a better decision because he's done a consensus.

trish wrote:

Many families (including mine) have made these sorts of decisions by consensus. Many times everyone is happy with the consensus.

Many families decision (including mine) have simply been made by the head of household. Many times we've been happy also.

trish wrote:

Sometimes the consensus is not easy in coming. But when the latter circumstance arises people will eventually see reason, or negotiate a compromise so that ultimately everyone consents to the choice that was made.

Sometimes the opposite is true. What I say you win some, you lose some. Sometimes you've got to "strike while the iron is hot."

trish wrote:

This is not a democratic model. There’s no voting. It family organization based on consensus.

Sounds like democratic voting to me. Oh well 2 ways of saying "tomato" right.

trish wrote:

I do not recommend it for nations and state. But right now, we’re talking about families and not states.

So what do you recommend for countries/states? We was talking about states but I think I diverted it to family. Oh well can we get back to running a country/state soon please?

trish wrote:

When everyone consents to a decision, there might be some disappointed people, but everyone came to the same decision and there is little room for resentments to arise.

What about the people that didn't agree to the consensus. Would their resentments disappear because the consensus was done fairly.

trish wrote:

I take it from you that in monarchical households the father has the final word in these decisions. A loving farther may listen to and weigh the reasons and desires of his family but he does not ultimately seek for their agreement; the decision is his and his alone.

Regardless if anybody seeks other peoples agreement or not. A good decision is "a good decision."

trish wrote:

One can easily see how resentments can arise under such an arrangement. One can also easily see that if Dad is stupid such an arrangement can be detrimental in other ways to the family.

True enough. However resentments can arise over consensus' and just about any other thing really. What would happen if you do a consensus with stupid people, I'm pretty sure the outcome of it won't be good either.

trish wrote:

I think the growing resentments would be poisonous. I personally, would find it very difficult to be a member of such a family. I would never marry someone who wished to rule the roost and didn’t accept my thinking as equal to his.

As I said resentment happens over many different things especially in families. Just because someone makes decisions for you doesn't mean that they don't accept your thinking or input. You may decide important things without consulting your partner as well. Example what if me and you were a couple (of course figuratively speaking) and a bunch of dumb rednecks were hassling us and pretty soon it would become violent. You say " it's not worth it, forget them." I ignore your input and I chivalrously defended you and I by knocking 7 tonnes of crap out of the rednecks. Would you leave me because I didn't value your input?

trish wrote:

As far as family goes, I don’t care how beneficent the “father” is and how well he “rules”, if he indeed intends to rule, then he won’t be ruling me.

So you'll rather have a crap ruler instead. Oh well

I don't think we are going to change each others minds when it comes to "how a family should be ran" but "trish" remember my 3 truths which I have stated:
- It's not about who rules/leads, it's about how they rule/lead.
- Just because you are ruled over, doesn't mean you are oppressed or you don't have a voice.
- "The people" have no right to choose their ruler and their laws.

"trish" are you sure you are a Yank because you have the wit of a Brit. You should come over to England. Your intelligence is wasted these Yanks.
Got to "log off" goodbye "trish"

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

[trish]

Wizzer writes:

I would explain more of … the importance of the family unit for society/civilisation.

Please do. You frequently repeat the maxim in bold and seem to derive from it the singular hypothesis that the best governments are monarchies. I’m quite sure that doesn’t follow from the simple observation that children are socialized in part through their family relationships.

What if the "father's" current job pays poorly, the house he lives in is ran down and he can't support his family of X amount of kids one being a 17 year old with his salary. He's done a consensus and they have most of his family has decided to stay.

It’s not a consensus if only most of the family have decided to stay.

Are you honestly saying that would be a better decision because he's done a consensus.

I think you’re confusing a census with a consensus. I think, even in this instance, it would be best for the family to arrive at a consensus.

Many families decision (including mine) have simply been made by the head of household. Many times we've been happy also.

I didn’t say anything to contradict that observation. I’ve only argued that it’s a style of organization that prone to building resentments; but I can present no demonstration that would show resentments are an inevitable consequence of monarchical structure. Neither can you demonstrate that the monarchial form of family structure is the “best.” This of course brings us back to what “best” means. Do you mean the “speediest’ way for a family to make decisions? Is it the family structure that teaches independence and critical thinking skills? What is your measure of “best”.

Sometimes the opposite is true.

I mentioned that in the exact same paragraph. The value is in having arrived at a consensus, whether it was easy or difficult.

Just because someone makes decisions for you doesn't mean that they don't accept your thinking or input.

Of course it does. That’s why, in the context of family, I disagree with your second rule. Yes, the monarchical father might listen lovingly to your advice, but in the end he may reject your reasoning. That never happens in a family that takes the time (and usually it doesn’t take a lot of time…and when it does it’s time well spent) to arrive at a consensus. All arguments are heard, modified and reworked, negotiated and in the end the agreement is universal.

trish wrote:
Quote:
As far as family goes, I don’t care how beneficent the “father” is and how well he “rules”, if he indeed intends to rule, then he won’t be ruling me.

You reply

So you'll rather have a crap ruler instead.

Come on now you know better than that. Your crap remark is in no way a corollary of my assertion. In the context of family, I will have absolutely no ruler…beneficent or not.

That’s why, in the context of family, I cannot agree with your first rule.

As far as rights go (your third rule), I doubt very much that the universe has a moral structure on which we can base any sort of rights theory. We create whatever rights we have. We have created for ourselves the right to choose from among us, on a periodic basis, our executives, legislators and jurists.

[hippifried]

Wiz,
For all your cherry-picked anecdotes about who screwed up & who was supposedly a good guy, or which societies were better or worse off under which regime, I still haven't seen an argument supporting your contention that we SHOULD be under monarchistic rule. Could be is not should be.

[Wizzer]

trish wrote:

Quote:
What if the "father's" current job pays poorly, the house he lives in is ran down and he can't support his family of X amount of kids one being a 17 year old with his salary. He's done a consensus and they have most of his family has decided to stay.

It’s not a consensus if only most of the family have decided to stay.
Quote:
Are you honestly saying that would be a better decision because he's done a consensus.
I think you’re confusing a census with a consensus. I think, even in this instance, it would be best for the family to arrive at a consensus.

Quote:
Many families decision (including mine) have simply been made by the head of household. Many times we've been happy also.
I didn’t say anything to contradict that observation. I’ve only argued that it’s a style of organization that prone to building resentments; but I can present no demonstration that would show resentments are an inevitable consequence of monarchical structure. Neither can you demonstrate that the monarchial form of family structure is the “best.” This of course brings us back to what “best” means. Do you mean the “speediest’ way for a family to make decisions? Is it the family structure that teaches independence and critical thinking skills? What is your measure of “best”.

Quote:
Sometimes the opposite is true.
I mentioned that in the exact same paragraph. The value is in having arrived at a consensus, whether it was easy or difficult.

Quote:
Just because someone makes decisions for you doesn't mean that they don't accept your thinking or input.
Of course it does. That’s why, in the context of family, I disagree with your second rule. Yes, the monarchical father might listen lovingly to your advice, but in the end he may reject your reasoning. That never happens in a family that takes the time (and usually it doesn’t take a lot of time…and when it does it’s time well spent) to arrive at a consensus. All arguments are heard, modified and reworked, negotiated and in the end the agreement is universal.

Quote:
trish wrote:
Quote:
As far as family goes, I don’t care how beneficent the “father” is and how well he “rules”, if he indeed intends to rule, then he won’t be ruling me.

You replyQuote:
So you'll rather have a crap ruler instead.


Come on now you know better than that. Your crap remark is in no way a corollary of my assertion. In the context of family, I will have absolutely no ruler…beneficent or not.

That’s why, in the context of family, I cannot agree with your first rule.

With the family part we're going to have to agree to disagree.

trish wrote:

As far as rights go (your third rule), I doubt very much that the universe has a moral structure on which we can base any sort of rights theory.

That can lead to nihilism. To a certain extent rights are based on morals and thus has to be restricted. To not restrict freedoms/rights would be dangerously immoral.

trish wrote:

We have created for ourselves the right to choose from among us, on a periodic basis, our executives, legislators and jurists.

Maybe so. Does this mean they'll be good at what they'll do. It doesn't matter who runs things, it's about how they run things.

hippifried wrote:

Wiz,
For all your cherry-picked anecdotes about who screwed up & who was supposedly a good guy, or which societies were better or worse off under which regime, I still haven't seen an argument supporting your contention that we SHOULD be under monarchistic rule. Could be is not should be.

You haven't made your arguments either. I suppose I could say that the Soviet Republic leaders has killed 50-100 times more people than every Russian "Tsar" put together. The French is in it's 5th republic because the previous one's were so corrupt they begged for their monarchs to rule again. The fact that most "age of enlightenment" republics at the start of their existance usually go sour within 30 years. I don't really know how to argue my point that could be up to your standing. Oh well.

I've got some questions for you guys. Please answer.
1. A good and wise monarch or a corrupt, evil democratically elected leader?
2. Do you truly believe that a consititution guarantees freedoms/rights?
3. If monarchies are so oppressive, why have they stood the test of time for about 6000 years and "Age of enlightenment" republics have only stood for less than 250 years?
4. Why are coup D'etats still more common in a republic than in monarchies?
5. Why don't you guys realise that "Age of Enlightenment" republican governments wield far more power than any Medieval monarch?
6. Did you know that classical republics had "Monarchs?"

[trish]

trish wrote:

As far as rights go (your third rule), I doubt very much that the universe has a moral structure on which we can base any sort of rights theory.

And Wizzer wrote:

That can lead to nihilism. To a certain extent rights are based on morals and thus has to be restricted.

If you wish you may call it nihilism. We do disagree here. You do realize that your counter is not an argument of any kind, it is simply an assumption that there is a moral structure to the laws of the universe. The negation of that assertion does not preclude the actual observation that people and societies indeed do construct moral codes and endeavor to live by them.

Wizzer also asserts:

It doesn't matter who runs things, it's about how they run things.

Of course, and monarchy is an example of how not to run things. It is irrelevant to this point whether there were monarchies that worked or not. It doesn't matter whether there are democracies that don't work and others that do. What is relevant is the freedom of the people to make their own mistakes and their own successes in matters concerning their own governance.