|
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 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| What are the arguments for it? You clearly don't understand the concept of a monarchy from your previous post. An absolute monarchy can not survive in a free society, and what's the point, other than tradition, of a monarch that is just a figure head. |
Leon, HW and I have already put forward a few arguments for it.
Secondly, you are obsessed with the idea of an absolute monarch. Why must it be an absolute monarch? Previous posts have already discussed this. There is a spectrum with absolute monarch at one end, and figurehead at the other.
Your problem is you have too fixed an idea of what monarchy entails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What are the arguments for it? You clearly don't understand the concept of a monarchy from your previous post. An absolute monarchy can not survive in a free society, and what's the point, other than tradition, of a monarch that is just a figure head. |
Leon, HW and I have already put forward a few arguments for it.
Secondly, you are obsessed with the idea of an absolute monarch. Why must it be an absolute monarch? Previous posts have already discussed this. There is a spectrum with absolute monarch at one end, and figurehead at the other.
Your problem is you have too fixed an idea of what monarchy entails. |
Sorry, but the things you are discussing are not monarchies. What you are arguing for, if I understand what you've said, is some sort of president with a really long term limit and who somehow gets chosen, but not by the people at large. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What are the arguments for it? You clearly don't understand the concept of a monarchy from your previous post. An absolute monarchy can not survive in a free society, and what's the point, other than tradition, of a monarch that is just a figure head. |
Leon, HW and I have already put forward a few arguments for it.
Secondly, you are obsessed with the idea of an absolute monarch. Why must it be an absolute monarch? Previous posts have already discussed this. There is a spectrum with absolute monarch at one end, and figurehead at the other.
Your problem is you have too fixed an idea of what monarchy entails. |
Sorry, but the things you are discussing are not monarchies. What you are arguing for, if I understand what you've said, is some sort of president with a really long term limit and who somehow gets chosen, but not by the people at large. |
Well, as HW has pointed out, the US president does bear similarities to a monarch. He's almost got the power of a king for about 4 years, unlike a parliamentary leader who needs the support of his party (though Blair did a good job of trying to increase a primeminister's power). What some are suggesting is a monarch-like entity that is not subject to the whims of the electorate every few years. You can't seem to get your head around this and are too embroiled in your old fashioned concepts of a traditional king.
You are not properly following the arguments, and frankly you are just wasting time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| What are the arguments for it? You clearly don't understand the concept of a monarchy from your previous post. An absolute monarchy can not survive in a free society, and what's the point, other than tradition, of a monarch that is just a figure head. |
Leon, HW and I have already put forward a few arguments for it.
Secondly, you are obsessed with the idea of an absolute monarch. Why must it be an absolute monarch? Previous posts have already discussed this. There is a spectrum with absolute monarch at one end, and figurehead at the other.
Your problem is you have too fixed an idea of what monarchy entails. |
Sorry, but the things you are discussing are not monarchies. What you are arguing for, if I understand what you've said, is some sort of president with a really long term limit and who somehow gets chosen, but not by the people at large. |
Well, as HW has pointed out, the US president does bear similarities to a monarch. He's almost got the power of a king for about 4 years, unlike a parliamentary leader who needs the support of his party (though Blair did a good job of trying to increase a primeminister's power). What some are suggesting is a monarch-like entity that is not subject to the whims of the electorate every few years. You can't seem to get your head around this and are too embroiled in your old fashioned concepts of a traditional king.
You are not properly following the arguments, and frankly you are just wasting time. |
I am following the arguments, and they are ridiculous. This has nothing to do with monarchies any more, but rather some sort of bizarre limited dictatorship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| This has nothing to do with monarchies any more, but rather some sort of bizarre limited dictatorship. |
You seem to have a very limited understanding of the concept of 'monarchy.'
Yes, a kind of limitated dictatorship is something we are exploring.
Now if you don't like it, just sod off, and stop being a pain in the behind. The thread was quite fun until you came here to bore us all. Bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
We talked a little about where the king's power originates, but we never reached a firm conclusion. What are your thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
We talked a little about where the king's power originates, but we never reached a firm conclusion. What are your thoughts? |
I would think that it would come from, at least in this era, tradition. All of the places that have monarchs have a long history of having a monarchy. Why else would the common wealth countries consider the Queen sovereign? This is one of the reasons that I think that it would be hard to create one in a country that hadn't ever had one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
You are talking about absolute monarchs. There are different methods of selecting monarchs, from heredity to being elected. And there are different ways of having them ending their term. They don't have to die. |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
You are talking about absolute monarchs. There are different methods of selecting monarchs, from heredity to being elected. And there are different ways of having them ending their term. They don't have to die. |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. |
No, this is just you and Leon being extremely pedantic and splitting hairs. We are exploring the idea of monarchy, and trying to devise one that would suit today's world - not the days of yore. We don't need to define our monarch by such narrow definitions. What we want are the best aspects of monarchy, without unnecessary trappings, such as hereditary selection of unsuitable individuals or allowing someone clearly in the grip of dementia to continue to reign.
| Quote: |
| Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. |
OK then, if we don't have some form of election (such as something modelled along the papal selection process) how do you suggest we might go about selecting our monarch, given that we want a very talented and altruistic individual, and not a power mad loon.
| Quote: |
| What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
Do we necessarily have to do away with elections? Can't we have elections for various other levels of government? And why would rare but intensive elections be such a bad thing? Maybe they would also focus us much more keenly, and make us think about issues more seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
You are talking about absolute monarchs. There are different methods of selecting monarchs, from heredity to being elected. And there are different ways of having them ending their term. They don't have to die. |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
That's fine. But, you cannot have a hereditary monarch. It doesn't work well. Also, successions are inherently messy, elections or no. Elections have not created factions, ambitions, or instability, elections were instituted to channel these political constants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
That's fine. But, you cannot have a hereditary monarch. It doesn't work well. Also, successions are inherently messy, elections or no. Elections have not created factions, ambitions, or instability, elections were instituted to channel these political constants. |
We shouldn't do away with the basic principle of heredity, because we have to keep the king above the fray. So if there are to be elections, there must be heredity within both the electorship and the candidates for kingship. I question if such a system doesn't create more problems than it solves. I agree that even simple successions can sometimes be messy. When I said that elections create factions etc. I didn't mean to imply that in absence of elections those things don't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
That's fine. But, you cannot have a hereditary monarch. It doesn't work well. Also, successions are inherently messy, elections or no. Elections have not created factions, ambitions, or instability, elections were instituted to channel these political constants. |
We shouldn't do away with the basic principle of heredity, because we have to keep the king above the fray. So if there are to be elections, there must be heredity within both the electorship and the candidates for kingship. I question if such a system doesn't create more problems than it solves. I agree that even simple successions can sometimes be messy. When I said that elections create factions etc. I didn't mean to imply that in absence of elections those things don't exist. |
This is given as one reason why the English chose the system of heredity sucession - unlike some other European states which had huge battles (and much bloodshed) between warring would-be successors competing for the vacated throne. A heredity system meant the likelihood of warfare after a king's death was greatly reduced. Last year a Libyan friend was discussing how (even though he has no love for Gadaffi or his family) he would prefer one of Gadaffi's sons to take over from Gadaffi when he karks it. That way the country is less likely to dragged into violence.
However, for we in the West, in this day and age, a heredity system is just not acceptable. We cannot accept some simpleton, or psychopath, to take over just by virtue of his genes. We need an excellent leader. We can't leave that to genetic chance.
We'll have to have a better method of selecting our new Queen, I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
This has little to do with Absolutism. I'm talking definitions. If you apply a term limit, sovereignty is just on loan, and what you have is a magistrate, not a monarch. |
No, this is just you and Leon being extremely pedantic and splitting hairs. We are exploring the idea of monarchy, and trying to devise one that would suit today's world - not the days of yore. We don't need to define our monarch by such narrow definitions. What we want are the best aspects of monarchy, without unnecessary trappings, such as hereditary selection of unsuitable individuals or allowing someone clearly in the grip of dementia to continue to reign. |
This isn't the first time I've been called pedantic on these forums. Even so I insist on theoretically sound definitions. In a monarchy, all power is held permanently by the king, and the kingship is in some fashion hereditary. Again, please don't confuse this with Absolutism. If you aren't clear on the difference I can explain it to you.
Leon is quite right in saying you're describing a limited dictatorship. If you want to champion limited dictatorship, do so. But don't commandeer the word monarchy simply because it has nicer emotional overtones.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Besides that, elective monarchy - with or without term limits - is no good because it creates factions, ambitions, and instability. |
OK then, if we don't have some form of election (such as something modelled along the papal selection process) how do you suggest we might go about selecting our monarch, given that we want a very talented and altruistic individual, and not a power mad loon. |
Part of the reason monarchy is such an excellent system is that it doesn't require the king to be selfless in order to govern for the common good. Because the king's position is permanent and hereditary (whether by primogeniture or kin-right), and because his kingdom is his property, he has every incentive to promote its well-being in the long-term. Since he is already invested with all power, and since kingship is not chosen but thrust upon him, (whereas elections actively select for ambitious individuals) there's that much less likelihood of ambition.
| Big Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| What we want to do is get rid of elections, not intensify them by making them rarer. |
Do we necessarily have to do away with elections? Can't we have elections for various other levels of government? And why would rare but intensive elections be such a bad thing? Maybe they would also focus us much more keenly, and make us think about issues more seriously. |
Because all power is vested in the king, every government official must be appointed directly or indirectly by him. But if we're talking about community representatives, by all means elect them.
When I say intensify elections, I mean make them even more partisan, potentially to violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now you are making an interesting argument. I look forward to more of this thread (when I have some time).
However, I can also be pedantic, and so...
| Quote: |
| In a monarchy, all power is held permanently by the king, and the kingship is in some fashion hereditary. |
"All power" is not necessarily held by the king unless he is an absolute monarch. In England, the monarch has always had their power limited in someway, especially since the Magna Carta. There are various models of monarchy, and you and Leon seem to cling to one particular model.
As for this notion that a monarch's term is lifelong - I understand that in Malaysia, the monarch has to give up the crown after a few years, and hand it onto someone else (although he doesn't have the kind of power that this thread has been created to discuss).
Secondly, while kingship is often (though not always) heredity, monarchy is not necessarily heredity. For example, the current Pope is an example of a monarch who did not inherit his position.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Now you are making an interesting argument. I look forward to more of this thread (when I have some time).
However, I can also be pedantic, and so...
| Quote: |
| In a monarchy, all power is held permanently by the king, and the kingship is in some fashion hereditary. |
"All power" is not necessarily held by the king unless he is an absolute monarch. In England, the monarch has always had their power limited in someway, especially since the Magna Carta. There are various models of monarchy, and you and Leon seem to cling to one particular model.
As for "all power is held permanently by the king" - I understand that in Malaysia, the monarch has to give up the crown after a few years, and hand it onto someone else.
Secondly, while kingship is often (though not always) heredity, monarchy is not necessarily heredity. For example, the current Pope is an example of a monarch who did not inherit his position. |
Incidentally, have you heard of the way the monarchy works in Malaysia.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Malaysia is a federal constitutional elective monarchy. The federal head of state of Malaysia is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, commonly referred to as the King of Malaysia. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected to a five-year term among the nine hereditary Sultans of the Malay states; the other four states, which have titular Governors, do not participate in the selection. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia |
|
| 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
