Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Of Monarchy
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:20 pm Post subject:

He's a ceremonial king - and I was just editing to make that point while you were posting yours.

Konglishman

Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

He's a ceremonial king - and I was just editing to make that point while you were posting yours.

Yes, but one could clearly extrapolate from that and see how an elected monarchy with real power, would work.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject:

Konglishman wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

He's a ceremonial king - and I was just editing to make that point while you were posting yours.

Yes, but one could clearly extrapolate from that and see how an elected monarchy with real power, would work.

Indeed.

They've certainly come up with an interesting compromise regarding power sharing (for what that power's worth).

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:28 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.

I simply mean that the King is above human law, is "he who decides the exception". This still places him below Traditional law. But even in Britain the kings suspended the written constitution fairly often; what they couldn't suspend, on pain of deposition, was the *unwritten* and *real* constitution.

Big Bird wrote:

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.

That's an interesting outlier. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:42 pm Post subject:

Here's an interesting article I found when seeking to find a source describing the old Germanic tradition of electing kings:

Quote:

Hereditary succession was always a problem for the Visigothic kingdom, two kings, Leovigild and Reccared, tried to solve the problem.

The Visigoths based their society on the old Germanic principle of elective kingship. The kings were chosen from an eligible pool of contenders closed round the ranks of the nobility; it was an oligarchy. This tradition persisted throughout the history of the Gothic peoples, both Ostrogoth and Visigoth. Unfortunately for the Visigoths, this led to plentiful assassination attempts, many of which were successful, and a weakening in the stability of the monarchy. Certain attempts were made to counter the power of the nobility; the most impressive were those of Leovigild and Reccared respectively.

Leovigild and the Nobility

Leovigild was co-elected, along with his brother, to the throne, 567, on the death of Athanagild, who had acquired the kingship through assassination. Leovigild, on the death of his brother, Luiva I, 572, assumed sole kingship and his rule, often understood as one of the brightest in the history of the Spanish Visigoths, was guided by two main objectives: unification of the peninsula and strengthening his rule by quashing all opponents.

Leovigild was very successful in both. He wanted, especially, to minimise the influence the nobles had on king making. To achieve this goal his associated his son, Reccared, as heir and co-king. This policy seemed t have achieved its goal as Reccared successfully inherited the throne without opposition in 601. It also helped that Leovigild destroyed, unmercifully, all opposition against his rule, at least in judging from a statement of Gregory of Tours�.

Although you could still argue that it was kind of heredity succession, as you had to be born into the pool of nobility in the first place. And it does support your belief that the kingship needs to be heredity for it to work well - so as to avoid a lot of strife. A belief I disagree with!

Edit: I forgot to supply a link, so posters might read the rest of the article if it interests them.

http://early-middle-ages.suite101.com/article.cfm/an-attempt-at-hereditary-succession-in-the-visigothic-kingdom

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: Monarchy is the rule by one in the common interest

Koveras wrote:

In a monarchy, all power is held permanently by the king, and the kingship is in some fashion hereditary.

This is neither the definition used by Aristotle or Machiavelli. I doubt you will find such a definition in Plato, either. Aristotle says:

Aristotle wrote:

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

Machiavelli reiterates Aristotle's definition of the six forms of government.

Quote:

I must at the beginning observe that some of the writers on politics distinguished three kinds of government, viz. the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the democratic; and maintain that the legislators of a people must choose from these three the one that seems to them most suitable. Other authors, wiser according to the opinion of many, count six kinds of governments, three of which are very bad, and three good in themselves, but so liable to be corrupted that they become absolutely bad. The three good ones are those which we have just named; the three bad ones result from the degradation of the other three, and each of them resembles its corresponding original, so that the transition from the one to the other is very easy. Thus monarchy becomes tyranny; aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy; and the popular government lapses readily into licentiousness.

Then Machiavelli criticizes hereditary succession for turning monarchies into tyrannies.

Quote:

As the human race increased, the necessity for uniting themselves for defence made itself felt; the better to attain this object, they chose the strongest and most courageous from amongst themselves and placed him at their head, promising to obey him. Thence they began to know the good and the honest, and to distinguish them from the bad and vicious; for seeing a man injure his benefactor aroused at once two sentiments in every heart, hatred against the ingrate and love for the benefactor. They blamed the first, and on the contrary honored those the more who showed themselves grateful, for each felt that he in turn might be subject to a like wrong; and to prevent similar evils, they set to work to make laws, and to institute punishments for those who contravened them. Such was the origin of justice. This caused them, when they had afterwards to choose a prince, neither to look to the strongest nor bravest, but to the wisest and most just. But when they began to make sovereignty hereditary and non-elective, the children quickly degenerated from their fathers; and, so far from trying to equal their virtues, they considered that a prince had nothing else to do than to excel all the rest in luxury, indulgence, and every other variety of pleasure. The prince consequently soon drew upon himself the general hatred. An object of hatred, he naturally felt fear; fear in turn dictated to him precautions and wrongs, and thus tyranny quickly developed itself. Such were the beginning and causes of disorders, conspiracies, and plots against the sovereigns, set on foot, not by the feeble and timid, but by those citizens who, surpassing the others in grandeur of soul, in wealth, and in courage, could not submit to the outrages and excesses of their princes.

Machiavelli goes into this much more in the Discourses on Livy, but I don't have it at my fingertips right now.

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

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.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that no one human being is fit to rule over masses of people. To do that the one human being would have to justify exactly why he is ruler. Long ago this was done through religious beliefs. Kings were put there by God, so people allowed it. Now people don't really take that idea seriously so there is a need to justify why you are sitting at the top. The only entity that can justify his seat at the top is a super intelligent AI that does not age and has human interests in mind.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Monarchy is the rule by one in the common interest

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Koveras wrote:

In a monarchy, all power is held permanently by the king, and the kingship is in some fashion hereditary.

This is neither the definition used by Aristotle or Machiavelli. I doubt you will find such a definition in Plato, either.

It's a definition I've extracted from Bodin and Dante. I've already put to you that the elective monarchy is acceptable to me so long as the electorship and the pool of candidates for kingship is "in some fashion" hereditary. That doesn't necessarily mean primogeniture, it can also mean kin-right. I believe this is more or less how historical elective monarchies have worked. The rest of your post isn't in dispute.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:50 am Post subject:

recessiontime wrote:

I agree. Divine right is important to kingship. That most people now don't take that seriously is a major problem.

recessiontime wrote:

The only entity that can justify his seat at the top is a super intelligent AI that does not age and has human interests in mind.

Computer programs are inflexible. One of the reasons for having a sovereign is that a static system of justice, no matter how perfect on paper, becomes unjust when applied to a society in perpetual development. There has to be a creative agent to handle exceptions and make changes when necessary.

Konglishman

Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:48 am Post subject:

Have any of you ever heard of Pedro II of Brazil?

Wikipedia wrote:

After his fall, Brazilians remained attached to the popular Emperor whom they regarded as a hero[441] and continued to perceive him as a national symbol, the Father of the People personified.[442] This view was even stronger among those of African descent, who equated the monarchy with freedom.[443] The phenomenon of continued support for the deposed monarch is largely credited to a generally held and unextinguished belief that he was a truly "wise, benevolent, austere and honest ruler."[444] The positive view towards Pedro II, and nostalgia for his reign, only grew as the nation quickly fell into a series of economic and political crises which Brazilians attributed to the Emperor's overthrow.[445] He never ceased being a popular hero, and would gradually become, once again, an official hero.[446]

Needless to say, he was a fairly strong monarch whose good governance of a democratic Brazil led to its most prosperous periods.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject:

Here's a related article about tinkering with the British monarchy.

The austerity monarch

Quote:

Constitutional reforms are removing the Queen's powers. But what does she do? And can we find a cheap replacement?

Quote:

Calling and dissolving parliaments has been in the monarch's sole power since there have been parliaments. Now the Lib-Cons want fixed terms but with a power of dissolution given to parliament � on a two thirds vote or a simple majority if it is a matter of confidence.

There is a precedent � in 1640 when parliament gave itself the power to dissolve itself. It didn't end well. In fact it took 20 years before what was left of the Long Parliament finally disbanded after executions, civil wars, more executions, purges, abolition, dictatorship, reinstatement and finally a return to the ways things were. The monarch has retained the power ever since.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe