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

[Wizzer]

Why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?
I have 3 reasons:

1. They don't reflect the 'natural law.'

2. They claim to be egalitarian but 'republican leaders' are anything but.

3. Look at the history of the ''age of enlightment'' republics. So much more bloody and opressive than the great monarchies of old ( and yet people still believe in the theory)

What do you guys think?

[trish]

Though the classical Greeks invented mathematics, philosophy and science, those intellectual ideals took a backseat during the Roman age of empire and the Roman Catholic age of religious rule. (I always find it odd that one of the most virulent Middle Eastern desert religions is regarded by conservative Americans as the basis of their government.) The western world wasn’t reintroduced to the classical Greek values until the renaissance. The Enlightenment values are in large part (though not exclusively) the values of mathematics, philosophy, science and art; i.e. intellectual integrity (for which freedom of expression is requisite), curiosity (which includes the freedom to question and test authority as well as nature) and the pursuit of excellence (including the freedom to pursue individual goals as well as those of the state).

I think there’s been more bloodshed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries generally, not just in those nations that embody Enlightenment ideals. One reason for this is there are just more people to kill. Poor Alexander never had a chance to kill more people than Hitler. I would be curious to know, however, if there were any pre-modern political conflicts which induced losses proportional to the losses accrued by modern conflicts.

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals. It’s not that Enlightenment ideals don’t reflect nature, but rather we owe our excellence at killing to the fact that Enlightenment sciences reflect nature all too well. We've become just too damn good at what we do, and unfortunately one of the things human beings do is kill other human beings.

You would perhaps like to argue that science itself is unnatural. I’m of the opinion, however, that nothing in the universe is unnatural. If it exists in nature, it is natural. Our technology was born of this Earth’s biosphere as surely as a beaver’s dam or swallow’s nest.

Your second objection that “republican leaders” claim to be egalitarian but aren’t is not an argument against Enlightenment values but rather an argument against pretenders to those values.

As I already mentioned, I not prepared to accept that Enlightenment civilizations are proportionately bloodier than others. I think human beings are not any different today than they were in the past. Whatever they believe is just a gossamer garment that does very little to restrict their human impulses. I happen to like the Enlightenment ideals; at least the ones that I’ve mentioned above.

[muhmuh]

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals.

i wonder what emmanuelle's cunt would have to say about what we did to and with the ideals of his time

[hippifried]

Nah! That's all a bunch of revisionist hype. The "enlightenment" was merely the return to hereditary despotic rule following the "dark ages". The "dark ages" was just that period after the implosion & collapse of the Roman Empire, when nobody was really in charge. We hear about how terrible a time it was, but who wrote the history? The Church of course. Reality is that the "dark ages" was probably the most peaceful time in recorded eurocentric history. No kings = no wars. The renaissance was just the church taking over & scientists were burned as heretics. Scientific & philosophical thought build over time. The idea that they just sprung up all of a sudden makes no sense. Something was happening during the period of anarchy. Would we have progressed as far as we have without the "enlightenment"? We'll never know because the church took over, wrote the history, & took credit for modernity.

All that said: I have no idea what the hell a 20th century "age of enlightenment" republic is. As far as I'm concerned, the real age of enlightenment is now with the realization that people don't really need to be ruled.

[InHouston]

This post is fabricated. Wizzer is really Trish.

Wizzer, is a brand new rookie member who had one post recorded at 12:45 am, and then along comes Trish at 2:54 am with her in-depth analysis she cut and pasted from Google somewhere.

Trish fabricated this post in a childish attempt to foist herself upon the forum as an expert on any and all subject matters. She wants people to sit back and think, "Wow, she knows everything." Why the hell would some new member of a tranny forum, jump straight into the political section and post such a poll while not familiar with the dynamics of the people that frequent the forum? It's obvious, it's Trish and the subject matter of the poll is clearly her style.

And besides Trish. A good deal of mathematics and science originated from Middle Eastern countries of the era too. You've cut and pasted the Western version of the history of math and science.

T-o-o-o-shay bitch. Busted!

[trish]

:roll:

[Oli]

This post is fabricated. Wizzer is really Trish.

Wizzer, is a brand new rookie member who had one post recorded at 12:45 am, and then along comes Trish at 2:54 am with her in-depth analysis she cut and pasted from Google somewhere.

Trish fabricated this post in a childish attempt to foist herself upon the forum as an expert on any and all subject matters. She wants people to sit back and think, "Wow, she knows everything." Why the hell would some new member of a tranny forum, jump straight into the political section and post such a poll while not familiar with the dynamics of the people that frequent the forum? It's obvious, it's Trish and the subject matter of the poll is clearly her style.

And besides Trish. A good deal of mathematics and science originated from Middle Eastern countries of the era too. You've cut and pasted the Western version of the history of math and science.

T-o-o-o-shay bitch. Busted!

Isn't there a home invasion you should be fabricating?

[Wizzer]

trish wrote :

Though the classical Greeks invented mathematics, philosophy and science, those intellectual ideals took a backseat during the Roman age of empire and the Roman Catholic age of religious rule. It wasn't just the classical Greeks that pioneered advanced mathematics, philosophy and science, the ancient Chinese did this as well. Besides many christian monks in dark age and medieval europe translated the ancient greek texts based on mathematics, philosophy and science and went into further investigation of the science. One medieval monk discovered the properties of visible light centuries before Sir Isaac Newton.

trish wrote :

(I always find it odd that one of the most virulent Middle Eastern desert religions is regarded by conservative Americans as the basis of their government.)
Well actually they're only half right. The bases of the American Government and many Islamic governments are the same:
"age of enlightenment" philosophies, but I will explain it all later.

trish wrote :

The Enlightenment values are in large part (though not exclusively) the values of mathematics, philosophy, science and art; i.e. intellectual integrity (for which freedom of expression is requisite), curiosity (which includes the freedom to question and test authority as well as nature) and the pursuit of excellence (including the freedom to pursue individual goals as well as those of the state).

these values existed before the ''age of enlightenment'', but it's rarely taught in schools, let alone to everyday people. Besides the ''age of enlightenment'' philosophies go far beyond mathematics, science and art.

trish wrote :

I think there’s been more bloodshed in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries generally, not just in those nations that embody Enlightenment ideals.
the prerequisite for many of the 20th century dictators has been the ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories. Again I shall explain soon enough. The 20th century dictators oppression and bloodlust made 99% of the monarchs of old look like a box of kittens.

trish wrote :

One reason for this is there are just more people to kill.
Another reason is because of modern day weapons. I don't see how can anyone compare a sword to an aircraft bomber.

trish wrote :

Poor Alexander never had a chance to kill more people than Hitler.
that's due to the level of technology. Please don't compare Alexander the Great to Hitler. They may have conquered peoples and other states but Alexander was respectful of other peoples and cultures, never forced anybody to join his army and was actually a wise ruler. As for hitler, nuff said.

trish wrote :

Still, modern technology, and in particular modern weapons technology is only possible through the sciences that owe their existence to Enlightenment ideals. It’s not that Enlightenment ideals don’t reflect nature, but rather we owe our excellence at killing to the fact that Enlightenment sciences reflect nature all too well. We've become just too damn good at what we do, and unfortunately one of the things human beings do is kill other human beings.

That is true to a certain extent. I'm not going to deny humans are good at killing eachother but there are other ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories that are responsible 20th century death tolls as well.

trish wrote :


You would perhaps like to argue that science itself is unnatural. I’m of the opinion, however, that nothing in the universe is unnatural. If it exists in nature, it is natural. Our technology was born of this Earth’s biosphere as surely as a beaver’s dam or swallow’s nest.
This is a misleading quote. Sure man has used science and logic for god knows how long, but it doesn't mean the things we make are natural. Beavers may build dams but concrete is man made, hence concrete dams are not natural. What about nylon?

trish wrote :

Your second objection that “republican leaders” claim to be egalitarian but aren’t is not an argument against Enlightenment values but rather an argument against pretenders to those values.
Again as I said the prerequisite for many of the 20th century dictators has been the ''age of enlightenment'' theories and counter theories. Again I shall explain soon enough. (btw nearly all of them were republican leaders.) Egaliterianism is also one of the values of the ''Age of enlightenment.''

trish wrote :

As I already mentioned, I not prepared to accept that Enlightenment civilizations are proportionately bloodier than others.
That's fine but 19th and 20th Century history proves you wrong

trish wrote :

I think human beings are not any different today than they were in the past.
Physically and genetically, no we are not. Technologically and mentality wise, we are quite different. Imagine telling a viking warrior that we have mastered flight, we know what make us what we are (DNA) and we have weapons of such power that it can destroy entire cities in an instant and the aftermath of that weapon can cause sicknesses that even we don't fully understand. The viking warrior would call us 'gods' we'll just say it's progress.

trish wrote :

I happen to like the Enlightenment ideals; at least the ones that I’ve mentioned above.
As I have said there's more to the ''age of enlightenment'' than those ideals. It also consists of other theories and counter theories.

[trish]

First I’d like to confess I haven’t voted in your poll yet, wizzer, because I’m not decided on which, if any of the choices was or is bloodier and more oppressive. For one thing, I’m not quite sure what would be the proper measure of the bloodshed and the oppression exercised. Whatever the proper measure, it would have to factor in the proportion of the fallen warriors and fallen citizens relative to the weapons technology available at the time. [Something like (number of deaths)/(population x destructive power of the technology)].

Second, I did not want to give the impression that the Western world is entirely responsible for the invention science, mathematics and philosophy. Rather (since the context of the thread, broadly speaking, is Enlightenment philosophy) I was speaking within the context of Western philosophy, empires, nations and regimes. I do believe at least once I hinted at that context when I said “The western world wasn’t reintroduced to classical Greek values until the renaissance.” I grant that Europeans contributed to the sciences and especially mathematics during the so called “Dark Ages.” But those contributions pale in volume and quality to those of Thales, Archimedies, Euclid and others of the classical Greek age. The larger volume great Medeaval contributions c[a]me [from] the Middle East.

Like I said, I haven’t voted yet. But let’s say that we can agree on a measure and by that measure it turns out “age of enlightenment” republics are bloodier and more oppressive. It would still remain to ascertain why. Note one cannot have the reason first and use it to establish the alleged fact. I take it, however, that you already have a set of reasons in mind and that one of those reasons is that human technology is unnatural. Strictly speaking, nylon IS natural and so is everything else that is contained within the cosmos. A philosopher would be hard pressed to demarcate the distinction between artificial/natural or supernatural/natural and any other such dichotomy. You[r] take may however, be simpler. You may have something more historical in mind, a relative notion of natural rather than an absolute one. It is true that advanced technology has made killing not only easier to perform, but easier for the performer to deal with emotionally. Today you can sit at a computer terminal in Nevada and shoot missiles at a military camp from a drone flying over Iraq. Personally, I wouldn’t characterize that technology as unnatural, but it IS powerful and efficient technology.

[Wizzer]

Sorry 'Trish' I shall explain what a ''Age of enlightenment'' republic is.
An ''Age of enlightenment'' republic is on of the main philosophies of the ''age of enlightenment'' (mid 17th century - mid 18th century).
basically it is the perception that all hereditary heads of state/rulers (monarchs) and hereditary peers (nobles/aristocracy) are oppressive and obsolete and 'the people' will rise up and overthrow their oppressors and 'the people' will democratically choose a new rulers (obviously non-hereditary) based on merit and 'the will of the people.' (Sounds like 2 revolutions, this is not a coincidence!!!!!!!)
What a noble theory....... but
'The path of hell is pathed with noble intentions.'

Most the stuff that you read about ' The French Revolution ' is rubbish. HRM King Louie XVI (I think it was XVI I can't remember) was no tyrant, he was too foolish to be a tyrant. The revolution was not a ''spur of a moment type'' thing but planned and critically executed.
Just over 1 million people died during 'The French Revolution', their economy was in tatters, it became much more of a police state with 'hebeus corpus' non existant, but that's not the worst part. during the corrupt and petty sqabblings of the men in charge (some of which were not voted, irony huh?) guess who took over France? Napoleon I (he declared himself emperor) which started the whole continental war.

So what my point?

My point is that a monarch is much more than a supreme commander of their armed forces. They are seen or should be seen as fathers of their people. They were taught not only military strategums but also politics, diplomacy and how to interact and take care of their people from a very young age. Have you ever noticed that Republican leaders say 'the people' but Monarchs say 'my people'.
the problem with the ''Age of enlightenment'' republic theory is who replaces the monarch. Some say let ''the people'' choose their ruler and combined with the 'rule of law' the ruler can't oppress 'the people.'
This is very much wrong because there is no such thing as ''the people.'' ''The people'' are not one single entity but lots of different people with different ideas and opinions, so how can any ruler truly know what 'the people' want. Also what is the law. well it's simple really what ever the ruler and government say we can or cannot do. So the ''Rule of Law'' theory is washed up. Some say there should be no ruler. They are not worth dignifying with an answer apart from this, so long as humans are a social animal we will always band together. This banding together will make a group. Every single group no matter how headstrong, they will need a leader and with that there has to be followers. So rulers are inevitable. Also what happens if someone usurps the leadership of a country what then!! constitutions are useless then now that they taken over the country, what the usurper says, goes.
This has happened many times to monarchies over the 19th and 20th centuries. some good monarchs and some bad monarchs getting usurped by even more corrupt and tyrannical republcian dictators.
Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.
Yet many people today still believe in that theory, when it has been disproved so many times (with the blood of so many people) epsecially the yanks.
(if you've haven't guessed I'm a monarchist)
So many of the revolutions were based on ''The French Revolution.'' If people think that the dark and the middle ages were bad then what does that make the communist states of the 20th century. The sad truth is that the foundations for the 20th century republican dictators are still with us today which could make the 21st century just as bloody and oppressive.

Here are some of the other crap philosophies that the '' Age of Enlightenment '' have given us :
- The Left/Right political spectrum
- Fascism
- Communism
- Capitalism
- Libertarianism
- Liberalism
- Feminism
- Neo-conservatism
- Socialism
- Nation-States and Nationalism
- Democracy
- and much much more crap to come

I'll explain about these horrible '' Age of Enlightenment '' philosophies another time. see ya Trish.
Also check out this website to learn more of what they won't teach you in schools

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello

[muhmuh]

Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.

and how many of these were democracies/republics? oh right none

[InHouston]

:roll:

Bullshit, you don't fool me. It doesn't surprise me that you turn around and pull the very thing you accuse me of doing. Only a little shithead intellectual elite like yourself would pull that slight of hand. You're not that smart, and you're not the intellectual you pride yourself as being.

I would relish the opportunity to sit down with you face to face and have a one on one discussion on any and all matters of your choice without you having Google as a resource. You're a cut and paste data miner who's loaded with mounds of useless rhetoric and zero personal experience. It would be very entertaining to discover in person just how ignorant and dumb you are. Your posts glean it.

:roll:

[trish]

...and they let this dinkydicked idiot carry loaded weapons! (BTW, posts don't glean, people do).

[hippifried]

The only difference between a king & a dictator is that the king doesn't need to have any redeeming value (intelligence, ambition, etc...) to reach that position. More often than not, with a monarch, you end up with megalomaniacal, weak, & stupid at the same time. Monarchs should be returned to their original purpose, being the human sacrifice.


Here are some of the other crap philosophies that the '' Age of Enlightenment '' have given us :
- The Left/Right political spectrum
- Fascism
- Communism
- Capitalism
- Libertarianism
- Liberalism
- Feminism
- Neo-conservatism
- Socialism
- Nation-States and Nationalism
- Democracy
- and much much more crap to come

Most of these BS isms (I noticed "consevatism" was omitted from the list sans the "neo" prefix) are just a product of the memetic idea that people are incapable of living in a society without being "ruled" by somebody. Where's the evidence to support it? There's always some jerk who thinks they're better or more important than everybody else & the meme seems to predate our recorded history. So how do we know this is true? From what I can tell, the problems between nations or tribes (same thing really) is almost always a problem between the so called "leaders". A couple of assholes get into a pissing match & then sic their armies on each other. Most of the strain & strife between ideologues & ists is nothing but an argument over which group of elitist snobs should be telling everybody else what to do. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that civilization continues & progresses despite "leadership".

[trish]

Go out with a crowd at people at night and ask, "Hey, what do ya wanna do next?" The replies range from

"I dunno."

"I don't care, whadah you wanna do?"

"Anything's fine by me."

to

"Let's go bowling."

"Let's hit the clubs."

to

"Naw, I don't wanna do that."

There are laid back, easy going folks who see no harm, at times, in letting others make the decisions.

There are lazy folks who just don't want to think about it and rather just follow the crowd.

There are people who have some good ideas and let them be known, and there are those who just want every body to do what they want to do all the time.

And there are natural born dissenters as well as those who dissent legitimately.

I think all this may just be hardwired into us, just as dominance hierarchies are natural to some other animaniac species. I think you're probably right, hippiefried, when you say "...civilization continues & progresses despite 'leadership'." Unfortunately, I also think there's no way to avoid leaders and followers.

[hippifried]

I think all this may just be hardwired into us, just as dominance hierarchies are natural to some other animaniac species. I think you're probably right, hippiefried, when you say "...civilization continues & progresses despite 'leadership'." Unfortunately, I also think there's no way to avoid leaders and followers.
I don't agree on the hardwired part, but I do agree that people will defer much of their decision making to others they feel are more thoughful, wiser, or better informed from issue to issue. Where I have a problem is in the claims that there needs to be an absolute authority. Succumbing to that mindset seems to cause more problems than it solves. Too many people who tout the idea of a natural dominant heirarchy change their tune when they get stuck in the submissive role. It's not the natural order of things when people only go along because they're powerless.

[Tomfurbs]

"It's not the natural order of things when people only go along because they're powerless.

I think the 'natural order of things', in so far as there is such a thing, is pretty much whatever happens. Therefore all systems that people have lived under can be classed as the 'natural order of things'. Killing each other and living in caves is a close to the 'natural order' as we've ever been.
Also regarding you're first post in this thread, I read 'Enlightenment' to mean David Hume and John Locke et al, which is hardly pro-religion.

[muhmuh]

and there are those who just want every body to do what they want to do all the time

and the problem is its those who become politicians

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made resident should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

[Wizzer]

muhmuh wrote:


Wizzer wrote:
Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.


and how many of these were democracies/republics? oh right none

This doesn't really answer my question. Answering a question with a question is not smart.

[muhmuh]

This doesn't really answer my question. Answering a question with a question is not smart.

no it doesnt answer the question but it is smart in that it highlights the stupidity of your question
1) all of these supposed democratic leaders you numbered were dictators which is essentially the same as monarchs minus the inbreeding
2) wilhelm 2. started world war 1 which wasnt exactly unbloody even compared to hitlers ww2

[hippifried]

Using Hitler & the like as an argument in favor of monarchy is totally bogus & silly.

Autocracy is autocracy no matter how it's brought about. It's not leadership because it's not voluntary for those under control by the authoritarian. All arguments in favor of it are an argument in favor of caste, & a claim that everybody else is too stupid or inferior to make decisions for themselves. That's never been true & that attitude just pisses people off without accomplishing anything.

Anybody can be fired. The problem with autocrats is that it's almost impossible to get rid of them except through violent means. In this regard, dictators are easier. All you have to do is cap the punk & it's over. There's no line of succession. With monarchs, on the other hand, you need to eradicate the bloodline. You need to keep killing the family until nobody's left to claim the throne. When you look at it, most dictators are just stepping in to take up slack left over by deposing the last autocrat in a rebellion that wasn't well organized against that happening.

The Shah of Iran isn't dead. He lives in Potomac MD with his wife & heirs & is still officially recognized as Shah by the US government & others. There's still a bounty on his head & his children. His father wasn't deposed by the Ayatolla Khomeini. He was run off by a popular uprising of his subjects because he was an asshole. The only reason it didn't get more bloody than it did was because the Iranian army refused to obey the royal order to murder their fellow citizens en masse.

By contrast, in a democracy or democratic republic, every election is a potential revolution. We get the opportunity to usurp the current power structure without bloodshed every couple of years. Without an assumption of permanent authority, every political officer is required to justify their existence to the people on a regular basis. If they can't, they're outa there. Being accountable doesn't detract from the effectiveness of government. There's always a bureaucracy that handles the day to day running of any government. They're accountable too, because every 4 years, the potential exists for changing who they answer to. An autocrat answers to no one until somebody does something drastic. Who needs that kind of crap?

[Wizzer]

muhmuh wrote:

no it doesnt answer the question but it is smart in that it highlights the stupidity of your question
1) all of these supposed democratic leaders you numbered were dictators which is essentially the same as monarchs minus the inbreeding

I don't think you thoroughly anylized the question thus you gave me a less than thorough answers. I never mentioned that they were democratically elected leaders, yet you mentioned this in your answer and yet you call the question stupid. ( For the record Hitler was voted into power and Ayatollah Khomeini was brought to power by the Iranian people. Democracy at work and yet look at what has happened. ) Dictators and monarchs are not the same thing. That is like comparing Alexander the Great to Hitler ( as I mentioned to " Trish " ) or King Faisal I and II to Saddam Hussain. Many monarchs throughout history respected other tribes, nationalities, races and cultures. Dictators on the other hand didn't, they mercilessly suppressed other cultures or down right tried to exterminate them. For all the talk about democracy, Americans are the worst. The British and the French made peace with the Native American peoples of North American continent, albeit through bloodshed. Yet Americans went on a all-out conquering spree of North America, violently suppressing most of the Native Americans and even annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii just because it was there. Not to mention all the other dictators the Americans bank rolled.

muhmuh wrote:

2) wilhelm 2. started world war 1 which wasnt exactly unbloody even compared to hitlers ww2
I am not going to deny that. Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Emperor of Austrio-Hungary did rush into war without truly thinking about it but thatis only one aspect of leadership. Another aspect of leadership is how you treat people and Hitler was 1000 times worse than they were. The Emperor Franz Joseph I was loved by his people especially by the Jews. He would even let his jewish soldiers have special equipment to do their kosher ceromonies. Tell me which of the leaders that I mentioned had concentration camps.

hippifried wrote:

Using Hitler & the like as an argument in favor of monarchy is totally bogus & silly.
Yet the bloodshed, the oppression and the corruption of the 20th century still happened when countries lost their monarchs ( just on a far larger scale). "Bogus & silly" maybe, truthful most definately.

hippifried wrote:

Autocracy is autocracy no matter how it's brought about.
True but not every autocrat is evil. There have been good autocrats. I think it goes without saying that a good autocrat (e.g. Franz Joseph I) is a lot better than an evil democratically elected leader ( e.g. Hitler and George W. Bush)

hippifried wrote:

It's not leadership because it's not voluntary for those under control by the authoritarian.
A leader is a leader no matter how he or she became one. To say that would mean that an armed forces general ranks can't command his men because they didn't volunteer to do so. One of the most pernicious lies of today is that people have a right to choose their leaders and their laws. You can disobey the leaders orders and their laws but it's not choosing.

hippifried wrote:

All arguments in favor of it are an argument in favor of caste, & a claim that everybody else is too stupid or inferior to make decisions for themselves.
The sad truth of the matter is that there will always be a type of cast system and no amount of egaliterian bullcrap will ever change that. For the record I am working class and proud and I can think and make decisions for myself. I just find people who whine about the idea of choosing a leader so inane. It doesn't matter who leads or rules, what matters is how they lead and rule.

hippifried wrote:

Anybody can be fired.
What if he or she owns a company?

hippifried wrote:

The problem with autocrats is that it's almost impossible to get rid of them except through violent means.
I beg to differ. There have been a few of bloodless coups ( Ethiopia's emperor and Egypt's last king. Only to be replaced by people who were a lot worse. )

hippifried wrote:

In this regard, dictators are easier. All you have to do is cap the punk & it's over. There's no line of succession.
If you honestly believe that then you are fool. Once republican dictators are in power they kill, imprison or exile anybody they perceive as a threat. Then they turn they country into a police state ( far more oppressive than monarchies) to ensure they are not assassinated.

hippifried wrote:

With monarchs, on the other hand, you need to eradicate the bloodline. You need to keep killing the family until nobody's left to claim the throne.
Typical answer of an " Age of Enlightenment" republican. "The sins of the son is that of his father."

hippifried wrote:

When you look at it, most dictators are just stepping in to take up slack left over by deposing the last autocrat in a rebellion that wasn't well organized against that happening.
And yet many of these republican dictators do an even worse job than the monarchs.

hippifried wrote:

The Shah of Iran isn't dead. He lives in Potomac MD with his wife & heirs & is still officially recognized as Shah by the US government & others. There's still a bounty on his head & his children.
Crown Prince of Iran hasn't been crowned as 'Shah' yet so thus 'The Shah of Iran' is dead. As I said typical " Age of Enlightenment" republican response "The sins of the son is that of his father."

hippifried wrote:

His father wasn't deposed by the Ayatolla Khomeini. He was run off by a popular uprising of his subjects because he was an asshole.
The first right thing you've said but he was pulling the strings in France. The Shah of Iran was an asshole but Ayatolla Khomeini was a 1000 times worse.

hippifried wrote:

The only reason it didn't get more bloody than it did was because the Iranian army refused to obey the royal order to murder their fellow citizens en masse.
The second true thing that you have mentioned you're on a roll

hippifried wrote:

By contrast, in a democracy or democratic republic, every election is a potential revolution. We get the opportunity to usurp the current power structure without bloodshed every couple of years.
What planet are you from seriously? look at what happened in Kenya or Zimbabwe. If that isn't bloodshed then what is it?

hippifried wrote:

Without an assumption of permanent authority, every political officer is required to justify their existence to the people on a regular basis. If they can't, they're outa there. Being accountable doesn't detract from the effectiveness of government. There's always a bureaucracy that handles the day to day running of any government. They're accountable too, because every 4 years, the potential exists for changing who they answer to.
Are you kidding, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath yet George Bush has started 2 wars, ruined the Yank economy (it was technically already ruined,) Lied to the Yanks, brought in the Patriot acts, didn't prepare for Hurricane Katrina and has detained and tortured alleged "terrorists" so where's his impeachment tribunaral?
Accountability doesn't mean that a government is effective either. I am accountable for my actions but that doesn't mean every thing that I have done is a good action.

hippifried wrote:

An autocrat answers to no one until somebody does something drastic. Who needs that kind of crap?
Most "Age of Enlightenment" republics have always been much more corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive than the monarchies they have replaced. 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries (Nepal) have proved my points. So who needs that kind of crap?

What "hippifried" & "muhmuh" don't understand is that modern day republican governments are far mor centralized than a medieval kingdom could ever have been. Yet you seem to be defending republican governments, why?
The shocking truth of this world is that Constitutions, laws, 'the people' and whatever can never truly control any government whatsoever. All people can hope for is a government that truly respects their own people regardless of whatever. There are somthings in this world we cannot control, deal with it.
Bring back "Trish" she is far better than you two knuckleheads in a debate, at least she knows and acknowledges some history.

[muhmuh]

republican dictators

completely and utterly hopeless fool

[Wizzer]

muhmuh wrote:

completely and utterly hopeless fool
What other inane insults are you going to hurl at me?
grow up child

[muhmuh]

none since i make a point of not conversing with internetidiots

[hippifried]

Leaders are followed.
Rulers just force their subjects into compliance.
There's a big difference between respect & grudging obedience.

Well Wiz,
You're never going to convince me because I don't buy into the idea that anyone needs to be ruled at all. The fact that there are people who seek despotic power isn't an argument for granting that despotic power to someone else just to keep the other guy from getting it. That's a mindset that belongs in the playground with the 5 year olds.

The reality is that the age of kings is over. It's not coming back, & no amount of philosophical rambling, historical revisionism & anecdotal cherry picking, or psychobabble mumbo jumbo is going to bring it back. It's not going to happen by force either, because no monarch can garner enough support among their own people to do it. They can only rely on a more powerful outside force to install them. The US did it twice in the last half century in the same part of the world. That's why we've had so much trouble with Iran & probably why we're having so much trouble in Afghanistan. Machievelli was an asshole, a fool, & a product of his time. All despots are malevolent by their very being because that flies in the face of individual self-determination. Installation of any despot, by anybody, for any reason is a blatant act of disrespect toward the people. Respect is a two way street & has to be earned. Anyone who claims power without earning the respect of those they would wield power over are just a malignant swelled head waiting for an axe. They're parasites. Deliberately installing a monarch or any other despot to rule over you is like shoving a tapeworm up your ass or rolling in a tub full of ticks. It does happen, but it's always regretted.

[Wizzer]

hippifried wrote:

Leaders are followed.
Rulers just force their subjects into compliance.
There's a big difference between respect & grudging obedience.
Again whatever you want to call them leaders, rulers etc it's all the same. They still have to command, protect, help etc the people which are beneath them. You are trying to make out they are different things.
You also go on about a monarch can't be respected. I beg to differ. There have been many monarchs throughout the ages that have been respected by their people. So please do your homework.

hippifried wrote:

Well Wiz,
You're never going to convince me because I don't buy into the idea that anyone needs to be ruled at all.
Gosh this argument that has been refuted time and time again. We will always be ruled by something or someone. Deal with it.

hippifried wrote:

The fact that there are people who seek despotic power isn't an argument for granting that despotic power to someone else just to keep the other guy from getting it. That's a mindset that belongs in the playground with the 5 year olds.
History again proves you wrong. Your type of mindset belongs belongs to be locked up in a looney bin.

hippifried wrote:

The reality is that the age of kings is over. It's not coming back, & no amount of philosophical rambling, historical revisionism & anecdotal cherry picking, or psychobabble mumbo jumbo is going to bring it back.
What about the Cambodia in 1993. oh thats right you don't read up on history.

hippifried wrote:

It's not going to happen by force either, because no monarch can garner enough support among their own people to do it.
You don't know what the future holds, so don't make them type of assumptions. Especially when you don't even know some basic history.

hippifried wrote:

They can only rely on a more powerful outside force to install them. The US did it twice in the last half century in the same part of the world. That's why we've had so much trouble with Iran & probably why we're having so much trouble in Afghanistan.
Don't forget that you Yanks are a bunch of self righteous, hypocritical, bullying arseholes. Yet who leads this world and did anyone vote for them to lead this world. Hm I sense some hypocracy.

hippifried wrote:

Machievelli was an asshole, a fool, & a product of his time.
But he did make some good insights on how to lead or rule. Again not important.

hippifried wrote:

All despots are malevolent by their very being because that flies in the face of individual self-determination.
The problem with "Age of Enlightenment" mentality, like yours is that the "individual" is the bases or the foundation of civilisation. I've got some depressing news for you. IT ISN'T. THE FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY. Individualism just reallymakes room for statism because individuals want different things. Also Individualism & Statism will always lead to family breakdowns. I bet you're the type of guy that complains that people are lacking family values. Well you have no right to complain when you think that the "Individual" is the foundation of civilisation. "Individualism & Statism" only make governments more intrusive thus making them far more powerful than any monarchy of old.

hippifried wrote:

Respect is a two way street & has to be earned.
Gosh the only smart thing you have said.

hippifried wrote:

Anyone who claims power without earning the respect of those they would wield power over are just a malignant swelled head waiting for an axe.
So when is "George Bush" and his administration going to get the axe.

hippifried wrote:

They're parasites. Deliberately installing a monarch or any other despot to rule over you is like shoving a tapeworm up your ass or rolling in a tub full of ticks. It does happen, but it's always regretted.
What if they turn out to be good rulers.

So much of what you've just said to me "hippifried" has been so assanine.
Not once have you proved your point to me. Well you have a couple of times. I've stripped apart your arguments and comments and have countered them with historical facts. Please do me a favour "hippifried" & "muhmuh" do your homework when trying to debate me and stop using inane and assanine straw man arguments.
Good Day

[dbev]

Monarchies Pre-middle ages (before 500 AD)

Which monarchies? .

In Europe there was the Roman Empire, which power was mostly based on slavery.

[trish]

THE FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY.

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."

[Wizzer]

dbev wrote:

Monarchies Pre-middle ages (before 500 AD)

Which monarchies? .

In Europe there was the Roman Empire, which power was mostly based on slavery.
That's half true. The Roman Empire's power was also based on military might. (Like a certain "Age of Enlightenment" republic throughout it's existance.)

trish wrote:

Not all families are monarchies. My family isn't.
Most families aren't monarchs but it doesn't escape the fact that FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION.What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY. Oh btw hello "trish" finally someone with intelligence to speak with unlike "hippifried" and "muhmuh."

trish wrote:

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.
True but there has also been successful families in which they have been quite hierachical with the father as the rulemaker, the provider, the protector and rule enforcer like a monarch. The mother as the nurturer, the supporter and semi rule enforcer like a monarch's consort. The children as the subjects. A person can 'rule' with kindness and love with strict punishments e.g. spankings for families context. Second of all, any monarch that doesn't listen to his people, nobles or consort is a fool and will always be doomed to failure. (In a family context, father = monarch, consort = mother, nobles = the extended family and close friends etc and the children = subjects.)
Please don't make the mistake that anybody that is ruled doesn't have a voice. Ultimately it's the monarch that make the rules and decisions.

trish wrote:

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.
There are many families like that unfortunately. Still FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION.

trish wrote:

My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a "monarchy."
So a family should be ran as a republic where the 'children' get to vote who are the 'parents' and after a certain amount of years they get to elect a new bunch of parents.
Wait a moment, what's this? There has only been a coup in the household and "Big Brother Jimmy" has usurped his 'parents' and made himself "president of the household."
We cannot choose certain things in life i.e. parents and their decisions. I'll say it once and I'll say it a thousand times.
- You can 'rule' a household and a state with love and kindness
- Just because you are ruled over doesn't mean you have no voice and you are oppressed.
- One the biggest and most pernicious lies of today is that "the people" have a right to choose their leaders/rulers and their laws.

"The family" like "the monarchy" is march more than blood relations. It's also about inheritance, spiritual values ( not necessarily religious ) and control of human nature.
Most "Age of Enlightenment" republics have always denied these 3 things and with deadly consequences.
Most republics have incredible taxes on things you inherit and peoples mentality reflect this as well. Have you noticed that nobody is thinking about their "will and testaments", many of the "baby boomer" generation are not leaving anything for their families when they die. With monarchs "ownership comes with responsibility."
As for 'human nature' republics seem to go to extremes with ideologies that doesn't reflect human nature:
- Communism
- Socialism
- Feminism
- Democracy
- Secularism

and those that reflect human nature too much:
- Libertarianism
- Capitalism
- Fundamentalism
- Fascism

Yet all of these are false. Human nature has to be subdued. Monarchism is good at this because it allows for certain parts of human nature i.e. families, tribes etc and it keeps at bay certain parts of human nature i.e rule of the strong, the weak should perish etc.

There was never any of these false ideologies before the "Protestant Reformation" and "The age of enlightenment", No left or right wing political spectrum and no nation-states and nationalism. Yet the 19th and 20th centuries have been incredibly more bloodier, oppressive and corrupt than any other time period in human history. Why is this?

I respect you "trish." You are intelligent and can at least give some arguments to my replies. Unlike "hippifried" & "muhmuh"

Please check out the websites for more info on false ideologies and how to counteract their foolishness. They maybe religious but they have very good info.

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

[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.

[hippifried]

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?"
I don't really need to make an argument because I'm not making the claim. All I have to do is shoot holes in yours. But let's go ahead & check out your questions.

1) Good & wise monarchs are few & far between. Everybody dies. "Good & wise" isn't genetic. I'll take the corrupt elected official because they can be gotten rid of as long as the republic is intact. The worst that can happen is autocracy, & that's what you're advocating in the first place.

2) No. People guarantee their own rights & freedoms. What a constitution does is recognize them in writing so everybody knows what's what. Rights aren't granted, & can't be rescinded. They're either recognized or violated.

3) 6000 years is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you can make the claim that monarchies were scattered around here & there back then, but now you're dipping back into the time when the king was just sitting around waiting for the drought or the flood so he could become the human sacrifice. I'm thinking that the "wise monarch" is just the one who tried to get by with a simple bloodletting & got lucky when the rains came, or stopped. The reality is that we don't know the social structure of the ancients, & most of our "understandings" are merely assumptions based on later European or Eurocentric models that we do know. We tend to project these same models on people all over the world. It's not necessarily true. Human society goes back a lot longer than 6000 years, with no evidence of monarchy. Native American culture was republican throughout north America, with representation chosen by acclimation. Down souththere were empires (Aztec, Mayan, Incan), but I've never seen evidence that rule was passed down from father to son.

4) They aren't. Most coup D'etats overthrow an autocrat, not a republic. But let's assume that you're correct by the numbers. The reason would be that there just aren't very many monarchies left.

5) So? Medieval times are long past & gone. The feudal system sucked & stifled social & economic progress for centuries. Nobody wants to go back to that crap. Well, except you maybe. Wielding power isn't the issue. Under a meritocracy, there are opportunities to climb out of serfdom without committing murder. Those opportunities are non-existent under a feudal caste system.

6) You're going to have to give some more details on that one, like maybe a definition, a time line, etc... You're already all over the place. Narrow it down.

[PapaGrande]

Why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?
I have 3 reasons:

1. They don't reflect the 'natural law.'

2. They claim to be egalitarian but 'republican leaders' are anything but.

3. Look at the history of the ''age of enlightment'' republics. So much more bloody and opressive than the great monarchies of old ( and yet people still believe in the theory)

What do you guys think?

Hey Wiz, why don't we just reject both the tyranny of the masses, and the tyranny of the crown?

Maybe you could add up body count for "bloodier" but how exactly did you calculate "oppressive"? The difference in technology and I would say fiat money systems is not a moot point IMO, so I don't think a straight body count proves anything.

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.

You may be right that individualism might weaken the bonds of family/tribalism, but there is no reason that if you take individualism to its logical conclusion of anarchy that the family/tribe/community still wouldn't be an important force in society. Anarchy, well at least free-market anarchy, favors peaceful interaction and co-operation between peoples. Maybe your idea of individualism is every man for himself, running around in the woods trying to scape by, but that is not the case. Well you said it leads to statism, so maybe you stopped at the first stage of individualism, but that is not the logical conclusion. There is such a thing as Socialist Anarchy, maybe thats what you are talking about, although it always seemed like an oxymoron to me, and it certainly has less proponents than market anarchy. And besides Socialist Anarchy is still stateless, so that doesn't lead to Statism either.

Actually there are a lot of forms (and sub forms) of government and there is no reason that any form cannot morph into any other form given enough time or a revolution, coup, etc. That being said, I think you are arguing a lost cause as I don't see Monarchy making up much lost ground.

I would say our own country started more as Minarchy/Libertarian and has been heading towards some collectivist form ever since.

god i hate having insomnia :(

[hippifried]

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.
I have to disagree. We're always collective. We're social critters & without the collective, we don't even survive as a species let alone progress to where we are today.

I'm not talking about Marxism. Marx was a crackpot like most philosophers, economists, & other would be claire voyants that insist on overanalyzing the past. For some silly reason, we seem to insist on defining all of our terminology by someone's book, or worse, by somebody else's misinterpretation of that book. It really doesn't work that way.

As far as I'm concerned, you're either a socialist or a hermit. Whatever you want to call it & regardless of how detailed you want to get, it all comes down to pooling our resources to accomplish things we can't do on our own. Even capitalism (a fairly recent social phenominon) is nothing but privatized socialism with a narrowed purpose & scope. We've never been non-collective & neither has anyone else. The purpose of our republic is to:
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
That's the natural order. Justice just means that nobody gets to be a total asshole with impunity (something lost in a monarchy). Domestic Tranquility is just everybody getting along without a bunch of hassle. The common defense is everybody standing up to protect the collective. We promote the general Welfare by providing infrastructure, easing suffering, & generally making life a little better for everybody. All this is promoted by the mindset of individual Liberty because that's what makes us appreciate the rest of it & eases the tension of our survival instinct. It's all about making things easier & better for our Posterity because, well, because propagation is the other instinct. We're social critters.

I see no conflict between collectivism & individualism. Anarchy isn't the absense of rules. Just the absense of rulers. Common sense & the golden rule become the king. What else do you need? Everything else is just arbitrary nonsense foist upon the collective by those who seek ablolute power. Who needs them? I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself thankyouverymuch.

[Wizzer]

hippifried wrote:

I don't really need to make an argument because I'm not making the claim. All I have to do is shoot holes in yours. But let's go ahead & check out your questions.
Doesn't matter. You can still provide you can still make a claim and an argument for your theories. Oh you're afraid that I might blow up your theories, right!

hippifried wrote:

1) Good & wise monarchs are few & far between. Everybody dies. "Good & wise" isn't genetic. I'll take the corrupt elected official because they can be gotten rid of as long as the republic is intact. The worst that can happen is autocracy, & that's what you're advocating in the first place.
This only proves you know sweet JS about history or modern regimes. Not every monarchy in the past or present is/was autocratic. Learn some history ( A good place to start would be Somalia. )

hippifried wrote:

2) No. People guarantee their own rights & freedoms. What a constitution does is recognize them in writing so everybody knows what's what. Rights aren't granted, & can't be rescinded. They're either recognized or violated.
Yet so many people forget this.

hippifried wrote:

3) 6000 years is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you can make the claim that monarchies were scattered around here & there back then, but now you're dipping back into the time when the king was just sitting around waiting for the drought or the flood so he could become the human sacrifice. I'm thinking that the "wise monarch" is just the one who tried to get by with a simple bloodletting & got lucky when the rains came, or stopped. The reality is that we don't know the social structure of the ancients, & most of our "understandings" are merely assumptions based on later European or Eurocentric models that we do know. We tend to project these same models on people all over the world. It's not necessarily true. Human society goes back a lot longer than 6000 years, with no evidence of monarchy. Native American culture was republican throughout north America, with representation chosen by acclimation. Down souththere were empires (Aztec, Mayan, Incan), but I've never seen evidence that rule was passed down from father to son.
Where to begin with this answer?
- Most monarchs commanded their armed forces. So bang goes the "human sacrifice" theory.
- Our understanding of ancient cultures and civilisation comes from observation of many things including tribal cultures around the world and guess what, the social structure in most of those cultures around the world were relatively the same. Hierachal and monarchal ( from monarch to son.) There were very few exceptions. With this it is assumed by most scientists that "monarchy" evolved from simple tribal chieftaincies and family inheritance. Not from religious needs. Bang goes the "human sacrifice" again.
- True enough human societies have existed way before 6000 years. Still have "age of enlightenment" republics lasted as long as "monarchy." No!
- Most North Native American tribes and cultures were not republican at all. Some allowed for the elders to chose their chiefs, but that doesn't make it republican.
- The Aztec, Mayan, Incan etc was passed down father to son, but there were councils to decied which son would inherit the title.

hippifried wrote:

4) They aren't. Most coup D'etats overthrow an autocrat, not a republic. But let's assume that you're correct by the numbers. The reason would be that there just aren't very many monarchies left.
An autocrat can be monarch or republican leader. As for the last part I'll give you that part. Again look at 20th century history.

hippifried wrote:

5) So? Medieval times are long past & gone. The feudal system sucked & stifled social & economic progress for centuries. Nobody wants to go back to that crap. Well, except you maybe. Wielding power isn't the issue. Under a meritocracy, there are opportunities to climb out of serfdom without committing murder. Those opportunities are non-existent under a feudal caste system.
My God!! you know JS about the medieval times but I can't blame you really. Most people don't. Try looking up on these website for more info
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

hippifried wrote:

6) You're going to have to give some more details on that one, like maybe a definition, a time line, etc... You're already all over the place. Narrow it down.
If you'd done some research you would know some classical republics of the past and present but I forgot you don't research the past. Try researching the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Hey Wiz, why don't we just reject both the tyranny of the masses, and the tyranny of the crown?
Of course, I reject both but I also reject the propoganda that all monarchies are tyrannical and everything "the people" does and say is the moral way to go.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Maybe you could add up body count for "bloodier" but how exactly did you calculate "oppressive"? The difference in technology and I would say fiat money systems is not a moot point IMO, so I don't think a straight body count proves anything.
Of course I'm not saying only body count equals oppression. However the use and level of technology does. The truth of the matter is that ancient regimes could only dream of the technological marvels we have today. To say what you have just said, is to compare Ivan the terrible's Russia with Stalin's Russia. Do you honestly think that Stalin could have oppressed and killed so many people with medieval technology.

PapaGrande Wrote:

I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.
Fair enough, I agree to a certain extent. By republics I mean the "age of enlightenment" theory that there should be no monarchs whatsoever.

PapaGrande Wrote:

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.
Yes i have read some of their works. They are some of the most vile things I have ever read. The problem with individualism is it puts to much emphasis on natural law. Go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/2008/01/license-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).
I get your point but go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/2008/01/license-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism.
Yes, but this can be misleading. As technology advances, so too the state increases it's influence and power because the state can access the technology and use it. Examples: CCTV cameras, modern warfare weaponry, standing armies etc.

PapaGrande Wrote:

You may be right that individualism might weaken the bonds of family/tribalism, but there is no reason that if you take individualism to its logical conclusion of anarchy that the family/tribe/community still wouldn't be an important force in society. Anarchy, well at least free-market anarchy, favors peaceful interaction and co-operation between peoples. Maybe your idea of individualism is every man for himself, running around in the woods trying to scape by, but that is not the case. Well you said it leads to statism, so maybe you stopped at the first stage of individualism, but that is not the logical conclusion. There is such a thing as Socialist Anarchy, maybe thats what you are talking about, although it always seemed like an oxymoron to me, and it certainly has less proponents than market anarchy. And besides Socialist Anarchy is still stateless, so that doesn't lead to Statism either.
Any form of anarchy is foolishness and utopian. None of which has ever existed in the past or can ever happpen. Be it anarcho-capitalism (right-wing libertarianism) or anacho-socialism (left-wing libertarianism or what communism was meant to be alledgedly.) The things I advocate at least have some historical reference and are not or ever will be utopian.
Go on to this website for more info and read John Medaille comments.
http://distributism.blogspot.com/2008/01/license-to-steal.html

PapaGrande Wrote:

Actually there are a lot of forms (and sub forms) of government and there is no reason that any form cannot morph into any other form given enough time or a revolution, coup, etc. That being said, I think you are arguing a lost cause as I don't see Monarchy making up much lost ground.
True about the first part. The second part will be difficult because of the enlightenment propoganda which exists today but monarchists around the world are growing slowly and surely.

PapaGrande Wrote:

I would say our own country started more as Minarchy/Libertarian and has been heading towards some collectivist form ever since.
No, America started out from revolting against it's rightful king to be lead by a bunch of freemason, slave owning, uber-capitalist scum!

PapaGrande Wrote:

god i hate having insomnia
I feel sorry for you. I've had insomnia. It feels like your mind is melting. Have you been to see a doctor?
Thanks for your input "PapaGrande"

hippifried wrote:

PapaGrande wrote:
I also reject all non-monarchy political/economic systems being lumped together, as if Socialist, Communist, fascist, Capitalist, and Democratic etc. Republics are equally bloody and oppressive.

Im not sure I understand about "republics" being against Natural Law. Have you read any Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, etc.? Seems to me that political/economic systems that spring from indivualism are compatible with Natural Law.

Also Individualism leads away from Statism, not towards it. The progression would be something like this: Individualism-> Pure Democracy->Representative Republic->Minarchism->Anarchy. Maybe even skip the pure democracy, but you get the point (I hope).

Collectivism leads the other way towards a large state and authoritarianism and/or socialism

hippifried wrote
I have to disagree. We're always collective. We're social critters & without the collective, we don't even survive as a species let alone progress to where we are today.
True enough, humans are a social animal. However what is "the collective."

hippifried wrote

I'm not talking about Marxism. Marx was a crackpot like most philosophers, economists, & other would be claire voyants that insist on overanalyzing the past.
True enough, but he was right about some of the things he said about capitalism. Those who don't know the past will only repeat the mistake of the past in the future.

hippifried wrote

As far as I'm concerned, you're either a socialist or a hermit. Whatever you want to call it & regardless of how detailed you want to get, it all comes down to pooling our resources to accomplish things we can't do on our own. Even capitalism (a fairly recent social phenominon) is nothing but privatized socialism with a narrowed purpose & scope.
I'm a monarchist and distributist. I reject most of these false ideologies that the age of enlightenment has brought upon us: Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Feminism etc.

hippifried wrote

Quote:
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

That's the natural order. Justice just means that nobody gets to be a total asshole with impunity (something lost in a monarchy). Domestic Tranquility is just everybody getting along without a bunch of hassle. The common defense is everybody standing up to protect the collective. We promote the general Welfare by providing infrastructure, easing suffering, & generally making life a little better for everybody. All this is promoted by the mindset of individual Liberty because that's what makes us appreciate the rest of it & eases the tension of our survival instinct. It's all about making things easier & better for our Posterity because, well, because propagation is the other instinct. We're social critters.
This can happen in a "Monarchy" as well. Oh right I forgot you don't learn from history dont you.

hippifried wrote

I see no conflict between collectivism & individualism. Anarchy isn't the absense of rules. Just the absense of rulers. Common sense & the golden rule become the king. What else do you need? Everything else is just arbitrary nonsense foist upon the collective by those who seek ablolute power. Who needs them? I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself thankyouverymuch.
Yet again, history proves you wrong!!! It is nothing more than Left-wing Libertarian utopian propoganda.

[hippifried]

You can still provide you can still make a claim and an argument for your theories. Oh you're afraid that I might blow up your theories, right!
I just did, & no you're not right.

Not every monarchy in the past or present is/was autocratic.
Huh??? Where? A monarchy is rule by a single head of state who's power is inherited through bloodline. It's autocracy by definition. The only monarchies left in the world are in the middle east, Brunei, maybe the Zulus, & a couple of one town principalities still clinging to the past in Europe. Everybody else is either living under some other form of autocracy or a republic, with the only exceptions being those stuck in the chaos of war. So who are you talking about?

- Most monarchs commanded their armed forces. So bang goes the "human sacrifice" theory.
Now you're trying to muddy the timeline. Armies are a tool for or a reaction to conquest. Conquest can be directly attributed to the mindset that stems from the invention of monarchy. You're putting the cart before the horse.

- Our understanding of ancient cultures and civilisation comes from observation of many things including tribal cultures around the world and guess what, the social structure in most of those cultures around the world were relatively the same. Hierachal and monarchal ( from monarch to son.) There were very few exceptions. With this it is assumed by most scientists that "monarchy" evolved from simple tribal chieftaincies and family inheritance. Not from religious needs. Bang goes the "human sacrifice" again.
Our understanding? Your's maybe & you're wrong again. I assume you're talking about primitive cultures. Nationalism is just tribalism with a bigger population. Heirarchal yes, but the reality is that most of them are & have been meritocracies, & that dates back to before the discovery of paternity. People will voluntarily defer to those they feel are more qualified, but a monarchy isn't based on qualification.

You're also projecting modern ideas of private property ownership on the ancients. There's no evidence that any such concepts existed prior to their inseption as a justification for the theft of resources & bondage of people.

There's always been shamen because ignorance begets superstition. Healers & spiritualists have always commanded a certain reverence via their willingness to attempt an explanation for mysterious events. Sacrifice followed the transition from hunter/gatherer to farmer/pastor. Animal & human sacrifice are the common denominator in all cultures that evolved into monarchies without being conquered into it. The sacrifice doesn't always work & that can create a backlash against the shaman who convinced everybody it would. If he cuts a deal with the chosen one to gain power, they can both live for another day. Royalty have always been considered a divinity of sorts. That's how they got away with it for so long. Education of the masses ends the superstition.

- True enough human societies have existed way before 6000 years. Still have "age of enlightenment" republics lasted as long as "monarchy." No!
That still remains to be seen. Monarchies don't seem to be holding up all that well these days & republics are still forming & evolving.

- Most North Native American tribes and cultures were not republican at all. Some allowed for the elders to chose their chiefs, but that doesn't make it republican.
Wrong again. They were just patriarchal when it came to dealings between tribes & nations. They were actually very well organized into nations of tribes & leagues of nations. The idea of "chiefs" is a projection. Different leaders would emerge depending what the situation called for. Major decisions were made by council consisting of everybody who'd been through the rights of passage. No kings anywhere north of Mexico.

- The Aztec, Mayan, Incan etc was passed down father to son, but there were councils to decied which son would inherit the title.
Where's the evidence of that? Pretty big assumption. Based on what? Lame attempts to read & analyze the pictoglyphs? The Aztecs, Maya, & Inca are still there with their cultures & lore still intact. Has anybody ever bothered to ask them about their history? I doubt it. Lore is only accepted as Eurocentric history, & only when in fits the agenda.

An autocrat can be monarch or republican leader.
Wrong again. All monarchs are autocrats but not all autocrats are monarchs. Republicans (this is not a reference to party affiliation) are not autocrats because they answer to their constituency. Autocrats don't answer to anyone except the usurper or insurgent that ends their reign or death itself. This is not a difficult concept & doesn't change through misuse of terminology.

My God!! you know JS about the medieval times but I can't blame you really. Most people don't. Try looking up on these website for more info
Oh give me a break on trying to glorify medieval times. Nearly a thousand years of oppression, repression, & constant warfare. The number of people killed in the hundred years of the Inquisition equaled the total population of Europe at any given time during the event. Can you say crusades? This is what you're advocating? Over your dead body, & your little king too.

If you'd done some research you would know some classical republics of the past and present but I forgot you don't research the past. Try researching the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I'm not a student. I only research when something piques my interest or is a direct benefit to me. I'm here for fun, not to research your claims for you. That said: If memory serves, the PLC was a sham monarchy with no power at all. It was a show to keep the slaves (serfs) in line & the barons in power. So what?

True enough, humans are a social animal. However what is "the collective."
The collective is everyone living in close proximity.

On Marx: Everybody makes a good point now & then. He was still a crackpot.

I'm a monarchist and distributist. I reject most of these false ideologies that the age of enlightenment has brought upon us: Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Feminism etc.
Isms are just isms & ists are just followers of isms. The concensus today is that monarchy is just an unnecessary burden. The fact that social, economic, & technilogical progress has increased by leaps & bounds since the hereditary "distributists" have been shunted aside probably means that that concensus won't be changing any time soon.

Yet again, history proves you wrong!!! It is nothing more than Left-wing Libertarian utopian propoganda.
& your tripe is what? Sorry, but I still haven't seen any evidence that monarchy has ever been of benefit to anyone but aristocracy. The human race as a whole is living better today than they ever have while monarchies & other tin pot would be rulers are falling by the wayside. In another few generations, there won't be a monarch left on the planet. Mark it on your calendar. Blueblood headed for extinction.

[chefmike]

Age of enlightenment?

Are ya'll talkin' about the 60's?

[hippifried]

Age of enlightenment?

Are ya'll talkin' about the 60's?
Nah. That was the age of aquariums. You've heard of getting "loaded to the gills"?