ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
You keep replying with unrelated 'answers'. That is what a 'strawman' is btw, you keep misusing the term.
That the British monarchy was controlling its economy was the straw man you inserted, knowing I was referring to pre-modern monarchs--most of whom we now call dictators.
This is not about the merits or otherwise of monarchies, it is about your statement that monarchies are de facto socialism. I replied that there is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government.
You're quibbling, mixing figurehead/constitutional monarchies with unlimited monarchies.
Can you give me a historical example of a monarchy that meets your definition of socialism?
John would be a good example. Even the elite peerage finally got fed up with his abuse of power and forced the Magna Carta on him, which they and he proceeded to ignore, and never offered any rights to the slobs in flyover country anyway. And it was a long way from that to the figurehead you have today, unless you want to stop and quibble about every little step forward or backward. I'm certainly not arguing socialism/government doesn't come in degrees. A monarchy which has unchecked power over its subjects which are required to maintain their fealty to him/her, is in effect a socialist system because the government affects everybody as to the protection or not of popular rights.
Societies develop over long periods of time according to their own unique situations.
Yes.
Just because something works well for country A doesn't mean it can be magically transplanted to country B.
That statement is so general, it could be about anything. THE issue, the only relevant issue as to the function of government, is the protection by that government of basic human rights to life, liberty, property and self-defense, provided equally to all.
It's stock-in-trade to describe people with a myopic viewpoint that can't see outside their America-centric concept of the world.
That sounds a lot like sour grapes. The only "America-centric" concept that I'm supporting is what I just said in my last paragraph, which isn't America-centric at all, but a universal necessity. But short-sighted socialists don't seem to worry about oppression until they become oppressed. Peace in our time....what.