-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
British People: Monarch or No?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Exactly. And if the Monarch is a good character who knows the responsibilities of running a country, picks good advisers and so on, then yes. I'm cool with that.
wicketkeeper
Living From the Heart.
Republic.
These parasites are not even close to royal.
These parasites are not even close to royal.
Again: what you're "cool with" doesn't matter. You might have a good leader, you might have a murderous despot, you might have someone who's completely incompetent. Whatever it is, you would just have to suck it up and deal with it.
You don't get to pick a good absolute monarchy with a good leader. The last choice you have is to implement the absolute monarchy; after that, it's just a roll of the dice and someone else's decisions.
Last edited:
So how would we go about ensuring that the monarch is someone who knows what they're doing better than you or I?
I imagine you'd agree a cruel and/or apathetic absolute monarch would be worse than a republic, so how do we ensure a good monarch?
Well, I'm an anarchist actually.
Damn, that guy speaks truth to power.
And you're a nationalist, somehow!
Are you fit to vote? And by what mandate does a non-democratic government rule?
Given some of the questionable views you've posted here, I don't think that basing people's right to vote on some sort of test for "fitness" is a road that you should be starting down.
Of course, no-one wants a bad Monarch. At the same time, we often get stuck with elected leaders we outright hate. And I don't know; I'd like to think that most people who are trained from birth to their future role as Monarch would develop a good character and capacity to rule.
I'm not saying the system is perfect.
In the case of the British crown, if you unpack their claim to power, it's ultimately based on claimed hereditary descent from Wotan (Odin).
Really.
No, I'm not sure I am. I'm 21 and I don't think I have enough knowledge to vote about the future of my country, although I do try to educate myself.
Questionable views? There is no 'test'. The average joe knows and cares more about Lady Gaga than politics.
No, certainly, the current system isn't either. But at least if we have a bad elected leader we have the capacity to get rid of them. A bad monarch is for life.
Haha! I guess - it's just tradition, a symbol of 'Britishness', as if we needed it.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
This a prob a claim I won't be able to defend against much scrutiny, but oh well lets have a go. Obviously all systems have their faults, but as I see it, a good monarchy achieves much more than a good absolute democracy.
There is no assurance. Just like there is no assurance that the Will of the People in a democracy is necessarily ethical. That being said, there are precautions we can take to prevent misuse of power. Have a monarch bound to a constitution or some other document that limits misuse of power. Or perhaps (a more radical idea), from a moment a monarch is born, educate them in notions of service to the people and their wellbeing (I.e raise the monarch in an environment where they are from a beginning receptive to said ethical norms). Or perhaps allow the monarch to be bound to a council of advisors (perhaps the wisest and representative of the people ) so that said ethics are interpreted in such a way as to benefit all represented groups (however the final decision and its responsibility lies with the monarch).
Monarchs change. Advisors change. Views will change.
Actually in my study of morality, most people actually agree on its basic and fundental principles. The divergence of morality is actually a result of non-moral principles rather than moral ones. Again the choice lies with the monarch. A good monarch would go with the choice that ensures the greatest wellbeing for their people.
On a side note, without monarchy, we would not be able to have moments like these:
As far as mandate is concerned, a state''s sovereignty to rule is already formed when its citizens participate in common life and share its protections. I don't believe a democratically elected body is needed for such a mandate.
There is no assurance. Just like there is no assurance that the Will of the People in a democracy is necessarily ethical. That being said, there are precautions we can take to prevent misuse of power. Have a monarch bound to a constitution or some other document that limits misuse of power. Or perhaps (a more radical idea), from a moment a monarch is born, educate them in notions of service to the people and their wellbeing (I.e raise the monarch in an environment where they are from a beginning receptive to said ethical norms). Or perhaps allow the monarch to be bound to a council of advisors (perhaps the wisest and representative of the people ) so that said ethics are interpreted in such a way as to benefit all represented groups (however the final decision and its responsibility lies with the monarch).
Monarchs change. Advisors change. Views will change.
Actually in my study of morality, most people actually agree on its basic and fundental principles. The divergence of morality is actually a result of non-moral principles rather than moral ones. Again the choice lies with the monarch. A good monarch would go with the choice that ensures the greatest wellbeing for their people.
On a side note, without monarchy, we would not be able to have moments like these:
As far as mandate is concerned, a state''s sovereignty to rule is already formed when its citizens participate in common life and share its protections. I don't believe a democratically elected body is needed for such a mandate.
I see your point, but what makes other people good enough to run your life for you?
Myself I don't think that a parliamentary democracy has a particularly strong mandate to govern either, but better than a system which isn't democratic at all.
I think you have an unnecessarily negative view of the general public.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I'm not seeing the conflict between the two here. Enlighten me, please?
Hmm. I'm thinking that a part of this might be down to personal character and upbringing. I was raised in a strong patriarchal home and the power hierachy worked well. I gravitate towards this kind of system. The people above have more experience and wisdom than those below.
Possibly.
Last edited:
Would you mind giving a very rough description of what you think an absolute democracy would be?
True enough, that we can't be assured the will of the people will be ethical, however, I think it's a much better measure of moral understandings than the whims of an individual or a cabal.
Now, many of the precautions you suggest here would indeed be helpful in improving the situation. But it seems to me they do so by dint of their taking away from the absoluteness of the monarchy!
That's true. This addresses 'updated', but no 'appropriately'!
What if we get a monarch who doesn't want black people to breed, or doesn't want same-sex couples to marry? Gotta wait a long time until the next one!
Yes, they do, I agree. But I think that divergence is based on different interpretations of those morals in relation to real-world situations. Also, doctrines can skew things.
Haha! However do the Americans cope without?
A mandate isn't an either-or, it's a sliding scale I think. A mandate can be strong or weak. Just because people are born and live in KSA, doesn't mean King Salman enjoys their mandate, IMO. The most extreme - does Kim Jong-un enjoy the mandate of the people of North Korea?
Well, support for anarcho-syndicalist ideals seems to me ultimately somewhat at odds with nationalist ideas, as the latter are based on separations between peoples based on social constructs aligned to geography. Not that the causes can't work together for a time, but ultimately I think the ideals of anarchism can't be fully realised in a nationalist environment.
Yeah, maybe so. But I still support equality for people even if they've bought into hierarchy.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
As I see it, an absolute democracy would be a system where the creation of laws, and its enforcement would be under the will of the people. All people would vote for each and every law and only when the majority presides will the law be brought into existence.
I would never support a monarchy where the monarch is not bound to some higher principles (either physically by a constitution, or tradition, or ethical principles or even God). Lord Rama, was a great monarch because he was willing to even sacrifice his own pleasures for the sake of Dharma. But He was God so...
If the public outcry is large enough, then the monarch must listen to the cry of the people on these issues and reconsider. Otherwise the monarch isn't really upholding the "well being of the people" is she?
Yeah, we can argue that the extent that people participate in common life can determine the strength of a mandate.
North Korea is interesting.
A think the state loses its sovereignty, in the case of three events. 1) the state no longer protects the citizen's common way of life and transgresses on their basic and fundamental rights. 2) the state consists of two or more sociopolitical bodies fighting for control of the state. 3) when the state is invaded by another more powerful state (I think these were the only three, if I remember my political philosophy correctly). We could argue that North Korea would qualify for (1) and hence does not have sovereignty
. .
Yeah, that does sound massively impractical. I'm not aware of any ideology which actually advocates this.
But this is because you're trying to max out democracy while maintaining statism, which is ultimately untenable. Statism sets a limit of democracy.
Hence anarchism! An anarchist society can be much more organised and much more democratic.
I would make an exception for Lord Rama, I suspect!
But I am not sure we should look to this time as an example for modern governance.
Who stops them? The entire point of an absolute monarch is that they're not beholden to the people.
You know what kind of head of state would respond even better to the outcry of the people, and have a stake in responding to their satisfaction? An elected one
I think of it more in terms of representation of their views.
Although I do have some difficulty regarding issues such as - democratic means are not recommended for deciding on issues of minority rights. Devolution eventually solves such dilemmas.
So do the 500,000 LGBT Ugandans whose sexual expression would be criminalised and punished with life imprisonment mean that the Ugandan government lacks a mandate for not protecting their basic and fundamental rights?
As for 2, does one of the two bodies have legitimacy? Has Assad's government lost a legitimacy it once had?
So the Tibetan government-in-exile has no mandate?
I would answer yes to some and no to some of these, with various qualifications.
