Miles White Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Just thought that it would be an interesting topic to bring up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Just thought that it would be an interesting topic to bring up. The downside of monarchy is the matter of succession. Suppose your Enlightened Monarch begets a cretin for a son or daughter. Then what? Do we have a coup? Do we assassinate the Royal Idiot and start over? And what if the Enlightened Monarch becomes a tyrant. Do we have a revolution? A periodic vote is much less disruptive than a revolution. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Monarchy is fraught with such issues. What if the royal heir is intelligent and competent but would rather be a doctor, architect or musician than king? Do you want someone in power who resents being there? Is it fair to force any man into a career he doesn't want to follow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Marilyn vos Savant said: "There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. If he were truly benevolent, he would not need to dictate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Marilyn vos Savant said: "There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. If he were truly benevolent, he would not need to dictate." Moreover, the very concept of the Benevolent Dictator as an unattainable ideal is a gross insult to humanity. It is premised on the idea that ideally we should be under the yoke but because we're allegedly unworthy creatures we'll just have to make do with the messiness of freedom. Feh. Thus I hold the advocates of this attitude in contempt. JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted June 15, 2007 Report Share Posted June 15, 2007 Moreover, the very concept of the Benevolent Dictator as an unattainable ideal is a gross insult to humanity. It is premised on the idea that ideally we should be under the yoke ..... JJM You have just stated the essence of Plato's -Republic-. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 "Enlightened absolutism" is not synonymous with "monarchy" ; in fact, the former is a contradiction in terms. An absolute state (which can be a monarchy or a democracy) seeks to control every detail of the lives of its subjects; this is perfectly incompatible with the ideals of the Enlightenment. Further, a monarchy need not be hereditary; Hungary's King Matthias, for example, was elected. And even if it is hereditary, it is not necessary that the monarch's son be the heir; instead, each monarch could choose his successor on the basis of character and fitness for the job. The essential difference between a (hypothetical) capitalist monarchy and a capitalist republic is that in the former, a single person bears responsibility for the protection of individual rights (delegating his responsibilities in whichever way he sees fit) while in the latter, decisions are made by many people through constitutionally defined processes. This is far less of a difference than the difference between absolutism and a capitalist republic, or the difference between democracy and a capitalist republic. (Note that many countries today, although monarchies or republics in name, are democracies in effect.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles White Posted June 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 I actually meant to vote for republic as opposed to monarchy but I must of accedentally hit monarchy. However I didn't mean to refer only to monarchy, but rather enlightened absolutism or a really intelligent renaissance individual as monarch and not just some guy as king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kulp Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 (edited) Just thought that it would be an interesting topic to bring up. I voted for enlightened absolutism. If I were king, I would cram freedom down their miserable throats no matter how hard they resisted, the stupid oafs. Anyway, I'm starting up a "Kulp for King" campaign. Care to make a campaign contribution? Larry Kulp Edited June 16, 2007 by Larry Kulp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted June 16, 2007 Report Share Posted June 16, 2007 I would cram freedom down their miserable throats no matter how hard they resisted "Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.