|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject: Of Monarchy |
 |
|
We begin our inquiry on the desirability of monarchy. By monarchy, we emphatically mean something altogether different than a dictatorship, the absolute rule of one person. We start with Aristotle, although he is controversial, and we may choose to end elsewhere.
Aristotle's Politics Book Three (Other translations are welcome)
First, we start with the three types of government and their perversions.
| Aristotle wrote: |
Part VII
The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages. Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind of virtue, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.
Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. |
Aristotle then apparently concludes that the best form of rule would be a monarchy.
| Aristotle wrote: |
Part XVIII
We maintain that the true forms of government are three, and that the best must be that which is administered by the best, and in which there is one man, or a whole family, or many persons, excelling all the others together in virtue, and both rulers and subjects are fitted, the one to rule, the others to be ruled, in such a manner as to attain the most eligible life. We showed at the commencement of our inquiry that the virtue of the good man is necessarily the same as the virtue of the citizen of the perfect state. Clearly then in the same manner, and by the same means through which a man becomes truly good, he will frame a state that is to be ruled by an aristocracy or by a king, and the same education and the same habits will be found to make a good man and a man fit to be a statesman or a king. |
At least one on this board also claims monarchy is the best. Unsurprisingly, many others are more hesitant to accept this. Discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Because Jordan and Saudi Arabi are so much fun, am I right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd trust a super intelligent AI to rule over humanity. I wouldn't say monarchy is the best political system but it probably is the most efficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'd trust a super intelligent AI to rule over humanity. I wouldn't say monarchy is the best political system but it probably is the most efficient. |
You've never seen a single sci-fi movie have you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'd trust a super intelligent AI to rule over humanity. I wouldn't say monarchy is the best political system but it probably is the most efficient. |
You've never seen a single sci-fi movie have you? |
You take them too seriously. People screw up in epic proportions, computers do not. I'm assuming of course the AI isn't some complete nut job hell bent on enslaving the human race. Is that too much to ask for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I'd trust a super intelligent AI to rule over humanity. I wouldn't say monarchy is the best political system but it probably is the most efficient. |
You've never seen a single sci-fi movie have you? |
You take them too seriously. People screw up in epic proportions, computers do not. I'm assuming of course the AI isn't some complete nut job hell bent on enslaving the human race. Is that too much to ask for? |
Yes. People are the ones designing the computers, remember. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that we should nominate a cat to be our monarch...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
It would scale back the contradictory, and all too corporately co-opted, electoral mandate and restore a sense of long-term vision and stewardship. If you believe a particular kind of monarchy would fulfill these qualifications, we're all ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
|
You mean something along the lines of post Charles II but pre George IV? Charles I dreamed of absolute monarchy (which didn't go down too well as most well know). After George IV, the monarchs pretty much lost power, and now we have something that's more of a figurehead and rubberstamp. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
|
You mean something along the lines of post Charles II but pre George IV? Charles I dreamed of absolute monarchy (which didn't go down too well as most well know). After George IV, the monarchs pretty much lost power, and now we have something that's more of a figurehead and rubberstamp. |
Absolute monarchy would be a terrible idea. Absolute constitutions are untenable, anyway, even absolute democracy.
But for it to be a proper monarchy, in the Aristotelian definition, the monarch must have a great deal of power, certainly more so than the aristocracy (and get creative with this one, I don't necessarily mean landed gentry, more like academics and holders of capital) or the demos. How much power is a matter for debate.
Remember that Aristotle defines a monarch as (s)he who rules to the common interest, a tyrant is (s)he who rules towards private interest. We don't want a tyrant, and probably no system can ward off the possibility of a monarchy descending into a tyranny.
My understanding of English domestic history is really vague and primarily informed by colonial history and Shakespeare. After scanning wiki, it seems the Georges were fairly weak, whereas the Stuarts somewhat arrogant. Apparently, Elizabeth I was the first monarch to understand that her authority rested on popular consent, not the divine right of kings. Some understanding of popular consent is necessary, simply because the people can revolt (there's nothing more pathetic than Richard II's mewlings after he's been deposed in the Shakespeare play). Probably more understanding of this is better than some. Nevertheless, the monarch's authority best rests on the understanding of common interest rather than merely gratifying the many. Complete divine right is out, I think, but as long as we stay away from the superstitions that plagued Ming Emperors, some divine authority might be useful.
I also think hereditary succession is out. It doesn't work very well.
We need a monarch strong enough to resist corporate capture and the contradictory whims of the multitude, but one restrained enough to respect core individual rights, if only because rights add legitimacy and even efficacy to the government's authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
|
You mean something along the lines of post Charles II but pre George IV? Charles I dreamed of absolute monarchy (which didn't go down too well as most well know). After George IV, the monarchs pretty much lost power, and now we have something that's more of a figurehead and rubberstamp. |
Absolute monarchy would be a terrible idea. Absolute constitutions are untenable, anyway, even absolute democracy.
But for it to be a proper monarchy, in the Aristotelian definition, the monarch must have a great deal of power, certainly more so than the aristocracy (and get creative with this one, I don't necessarily mean landed gentry, more like academics and holders of capital) or the demos. How much power is a matter for debate.
Remember that Aristotle defines a monarch as (s)he who rules to the common interest, a tyrant is (s)he who rules towards private interest. We don't want a tyrant, and probably no system can ward off the possibility of a monarchy descending into a tyranny.
My understanding of English domestic history is really vague and primarily informed by colonial history and Shakespeare. After scanning wiki, it seems the Georges were fairly weak, whereas the Stuarts somewhat arrogant. Apparently, Elizabeth I was the first monarch to understand that her authority rested on popular consent, not the divine right of kings. Some understanding of popular consent is necessary, simply because the people can revolt (there's nothing more pathetic than Richard II's mewlings after he's been deposed in the Shakespeare play). Probably more understanding of this is better than some. Nevertheless, the monarch's authority best rests on the understanding of common interest rather than merely gratifying the many. Complete divine right is out, I think, but as long as we stay away from the superstitions that plagued Ming Emperors, some divine authority might be useful.
I also think hereditary succession is out. It doesn't work very well.
We need a monarch strong enough to resist corporate capture and the contradictory whims of the multitude, but one restrained enough to respect core individual rights, if only because rights add legitimacy and even efficacy to the government's authority. |
Elizabeth I was one of our very best monarchs. I think only Alfred the Great comes close IMHO. William III was pretty good too, I suppose. Even though he was Dutch!
So how would we go about choosing the monarch? Something along the lines of the pope, where he gets the job for life and is chosen by 120 cardinals? I understand that the successful candidate needs a two-thirds majority - so that would help meet our criteria of popular consent (providing the equivalent of our cardinals were truly representative of the people). By the time the pope gets the job, he's an old bugger, and so has already proved his intelligence and ability with a few good decades behind him, so you can judge him by a long track record. That seems much better than giving someone the throne on account of their DNA.
Edit: thinking about the monarch's age. We don't want her to be too old (too tired, senile, etc) so maybe we need a limit. But we want her long term, so when should she be chosen? When she's mature with a good track record behind her, but still got a few good decades left to go? About 40, perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
|
You mean something along the lines of post Charles II but pre George IV? Charles I dreamed of absolute monarchy (which didn't go down too well as most well know). After George IV, the monarchs pretty much lost power, and now we have something that's more of a figurehead and rubberstamp. |
Absolute monarchy would be a terrible idea. Absolute constitutions are untenable, anyway, even absolute democracy.
But for it to be a proper monarchy, in the Aristotelian definition, the monarch must have a great deal of power, certainly more so than the aristocracy (and get creative with this one, I don't necessarily mean landed gentry, more like academics and holders of capital) or the demos. How much power is a matter for debate.
Remember that Aristotle defines a monarch as (s)he who rules to the common interest, a tyrant is (s)he who rules towards private interest. We don't want a tyrant, and probably no system can ward off the possibility of a monarchy descending into a tyranny.
My understanding of English domestic history is really vague and primarily informed by colonial history and Shakespeare. After scanning wiki, it seems the Georges were fairly weak, whereas the Stuarts somewhat arrogant. Apparently, Elizabeth I was the first monarch to understand that her authority rested on popular consent, not the divine right of kings. Some understanding of popular consent is necessary, simply because the people can revolt (there's nothing more pathetic than Richard II's mewlings after he's been deposed in the Shakespeare play). Probably more understanding of this is better than some. Nevertheless, the monarch's authority best rests on the understanding of common interest rather than merely gratifying the many. Complete divine right is out, I think, but as long as we stay away from the superstitions that plagued Ming Emperors, some divine authority might be useful.
I also think hereditary succession is out. It doesn't work very well.
We need a monarch strong enough to resist corporate capture and the contradictory whims of the multitude, but one restrained enough to respect core individual rights, if only because rights add legitimacy and even efficacy to the government's authority. |
Elizabeth I was one of our very best monarchs. I think only Alfred the Great comes close IMHO. William III was pretty good too, I suppose. Even though he was Dutch!
So how would we go about choosing the monarch? Something along the lines of the pope, where he gets the job for life and is chosen by 120 cardinals? I understand that the successful candidate needs a two-thirds majority - so that would help meet our criteria of popular consent (providing the equivalent of our cardinals were truly representative of the people). By the time the pope gets the job, he's an old bugger, and so has already proved his intelligence and ability with a few good decades behind him, so you can judge him by a long track record. That seems much better than giving someone the throne on account of their DNA.
Edit: thinking about the monarch's age. We don't want her to be too old (too tired, senile, etc) so maybe we need a limit. But we want her long term, so when should she be chosen? When she's mature with a good track record behind her, but still got a few good decades left to go? About 40, perhaps? |
Here in America the President must be at least 45 years of age. He's the closest thing to a monarch in any Western democracy. I could go as low as 30, really. You want a monarch to last a good generation, so about 25-35 years of rule. I think a term limit of 40 years would have great advantages.
And the selection process could vary. I would have the body representing the aristocracy select a handful of candidates, the body representing the demos vet them for at least a year, and then the people vote directly, with a French-style run-off for the top two.
Alternatively, you could have a single body, like the Cardinals, except their sole purpose was to select the crown. The other constitutive bodies would each send representatives to replace holders of this life-long office as they died out. I believe Iran has such a body.
Or some variation of the above two proposals.
What I wouldn't want are campaigning would-be monarchs. I believe America has this problem where we get the most charismatic, telegenic leaders who turn around and treat the office of President as a continual campaign platform. One must balance between consent of the people and choice of the people.
The important thing is that potential monarchs needn't discuss actual ongoing issues. They might answer hypotheticals, philosophical questions, or questions probing their character. But they would have the privilege, indeed the duty, from abstaining on direct questions of current, pressing issues.
I'd expect there'd be religious freedom embodied in a kind of Free Exercise Clause. Nevertheless, Koveras might be opposed to an Establishment Clause. Its much more important that people be free to worship as they please than that the government be restrained from promoting religion X, particularly if the promotion is merely symbolic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Here in America the President must be at least 45 years of age. |
 That's 35. I hope that was a typo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How would you get rid of them should they become incompetent? Corrupt? A tyrant? Would you chop of their head, because a monarch is for life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
