It's Time to Speak the Truth...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I think there is merit to the idea of a leader that does not have to bow to political pressure or otherwise have to be concerned with being elected out of office.[/quote]

I like the idea of not having a leader, elected or not. What about people ruling themself without politicians or aristocrats. Why is that idea so far fetched.
[/quote]

and how would you make group decisions on defense, infrastructure, social programs, etc?[/quote]

they vote over it offcourse. I am not against a organisation of the society, but I prefer a more direct democratic approach than the repressentativ approach that leads to corruption.

A great comic book qoute to put my wiews in perspective is: “who watches the watchmen”

ps. Its a great possibility that I speeled something wrong, so dont juse that against me please.

22

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Would you care to explain what you meen with monarchism?, because for me it doesnt make sense to be a
monarchist in a country that doesnt have a monarch.[/quote]

Monarchism is the favor of establishing and preserving a monarchy as the form of government. A monarchist, however, is someone that supports this form of government by principle and not necessarily of a person, which would be the Monarch.

Some Canadians are monarchist, some Brits, Aussies, Kiwi’s are monarchist, too. Some are not. They all live in a monarch, underneath the Queen of England.

I could ask the same thing of a communist why he would be a communist in a country that isn’t communist.

I read Leviathan and Hobbes is definitely an absolutist. I don’t particularly agree with what Hobbes put forth (not that it is wrong, but it wouldn’t fit our tradition) about absolutism and I have a hard time with his more liberal thoughts (I do agree with some of his stuff, just going over what I think of the work I have read).

Another point of contention with Hobbes, is he’s a radical and a skeptic. Both of which I am neither, the latter more than the former.[/quote]

So to get you right, you want to implement monarchy in the usa. isnt that rather untraditionalistic of you, because that goes against the american tradition of republicanism( rep as in opposition to monarchy ). Of lack of a better word it makes you a radical.

23

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Would you care to explain what you meen with monarchism?, because for me it doesnt make sense to be a
monarchist in a country that doesnt have a monarch.[/quote]

Monarchism is the favor of establishing and preserving a monarchy as the form of government. A monarchist, however, is someone that supports this form of government by principle and not necessarily of a person, which would be the Monarch.

Some Canadians are monarchist, some Brits, Aussies, Kiwi’s are monarchist, too. Some are not. They all live in a monarch, underneath the Queen of England.

I could ask the same thing of a communist why he would be a communist in a country that isn’t communist.

I read Leviathan and Hobbes is definitely an absolutist. I don’t particularly agree with what Hobbes put forth (not that it is wrong, but it wouldn’t fit our tradition) about absolutism and I have a hard time with his more liberal thoughts (I do agree with some of his stuff, just going over what I think of the work I have read).

Another point of contention with Hobbes, is he’s a radical and a skeptic. Both of which I am neither, the latter more than the former.[/quote]

While we swear allegiance to the Queen, she has no real power here or in any of the Commonwealth countries.

24

504×504 53.5 KB

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).

Now, before this discussion gets on way, I want to point out that this isn’t something were I just read an awesome book on monarchies (not sure there is one out there), and decided that it was for me. Looking back on this point, I can see this formation having its roots from about 5-6 years ago.

Discuss…and accuse.[/quote]

Natural Law, brah.

25

[quote]florelius wrote:
So to get you right, you want to implement monarchy in the usa. isnt that rather untraditionalistic of you, because that goes against the american tradition of republicanism( rep as in opposition to monarchy ). Of lack of a better word it makes you a radical.[/quote]

What do you mean by implement (I ask because presumption sometimes causes dialog to move two steps backwards when it doesn’t need, too)?

And, traditionally speaking, a Monarch wouldn’t be against the American tradition. Looking at the American Revolution, King George III was what I would call “radical” he was unprecedentedly micromanaging the Colonies. What the American Revolution was, wasn’t really a revolution but more of a defense against a tyrant and protecting of the Colonial traditions (which extend to British traditions). The problem though was because there was no written constitution (Britain still lacks one) King George III could do anything he well pleased. Reason for the Constitution. However, even though the Colonials didn’t much care for the tyranny, about 60% didn’t want Independence from the crown.

Now, I’m not saying that we should go back to being under the British Crown, we’re independent. The Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris prove this. However, if there was an organic Monarch to come about, then I wouldn’t object. However, unlike Hobbes who was an absolutist, I am not for an absolute monarchy, but a restrained one with a written constitution (no need to make a good war become vain). One that follows the principal of Subsidiarity.

If you look at the President, the only difference between him an a Monarch is that his decisions are based on ruthless faithfulness to the opinion polls (and sometimes not). And, I’d wager a dollar that Obama and some of his predecessors are more of a tyrant than King George III ever dreamed of being.

Republicanism I will deal with problems I see with our Republicanism later, but no. Our roots are in constitutional monarchy, we have developed into a republic, but those two are not opposites. I think a country would do good to try something and if it works keep it, if not let it expire. America’s Republic is past its due date. It seems to have turned into something that has a new Monarch every eight years by popular vote and directed by popular vote.

26

Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy?

28

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
So to get you right, you want to implement monarchy in the usa. isnt that rather untraditionalistic of you, because that goes against the american tradition of republicanism( rep as in opposition to monarchy ). Of lack of a better word it makes you a radical.[/quote]

What do you mean by implement (I ask because presumption sometimes causes dialog to move two steps backwards when it doesn’t need, too)?

And, traditionally speaking, a Monarch wouldn’t be against the American tradition. Looking at the American Revolution, King George III was what I would call “radical” he was unprecedentedly micromanaging the Colonies. What the American Revolution was, wasn’t really a revolution but more of a defense against a tyrant and protecting of the Colonial traditions (which extend to British traditions). The problem though was because there was no written constitution (Britain still lacks one) King George III could do anything he well pleased. Reason for the Constitution. However, even though the Colonials didn’t much care for the tyranny, about 60% didn’t want Independence from the crown.

Now, I’m not saying that we should go back to being under the British Crown, we’re independent. The Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris prove this. However, if there was an organic Monarch to come about, then I wouldn’t object. However, unlike Hobbes who was an absolutist, I am not for an absolute monarchy, but a restrained one with a written constitution (no need to make a good war become vain). One that follows the principal of Subsidiarity.

If you look at the President, the only difference between him an a Monarch is that his decisions are based on ruthless faithfulness to the opinion polls (and sometimes not). And, I’d wager a dollar that Obama and some of his predecessors are more of a tyrant than King George III ever dreamed of being.

Republicanism I will deal with problems I see with our Republicanism later, but no. Our roots are in constitutional monarchy, we have developed into a republic, but those two are not opposites. I think a country would do good to try something and if it works keep it, if not let it expire. America’s Republic is past its due date. It seems to have turned into something that has a new Monarch every eight years by popular vote and directed by popular vote.

[/quote]

By implement I mean you want to go away from the current system and establishing a new one aka a monarchy. Am I right or am I missunderstanding you?

29

Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?

30

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]

My guess would be that we all get together and kill the monarch.

Traditional Christianity has tended to support Monarchy as the ideal, but only in a nearly wholly Christian country. The Emperors had a place in the Cathedral, and received a second Chrismation. When Romania for example had no single ruler, they wrote to the German heirarchy to send a Duke to come and be their king, though he converted, was consecrated by the Patriarch with Chrism and had a seat in every Cathedral. I think the last of the Russian kings came by similar mechanisms.

I like the idea of hiring a national CEO who’s job is to run the country like a buisiness, and who can only be checked by certain actions of congress or courts-maybe congress being simply an elected branch that appoints judges, and judges being able to protect individuals rights or impeach the CEO. The question is who controls the military though. If the CEO, he has too much power. If not, then you’d have a hard time getting anything done, but that might not be bad for the military.

31

[quote]Makavali wrote:

While we swear allegiance to the Queen, she has no real power here or in any of the Commonwealth countries.[/quote]

If she is requested, can she not rule on a matter at hand?

32

[quote]florelius wrote:
By implement I mean you want to go away from the current system and establishing a new one aka a monarchy. Am I right or am I missunderstanding you?
[/quote]

The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.

The ‘current system’ is a complete mess, you have big business in the middle of government, you have politicians voting for the current trend instead of what it should be, you have a monopolistic public school system (that is the laughing stock of the world) controlled by teacher unions, for the sake of the teacher unions, as well as in the name of the teacher unions…the student doesn’t matter in the equation of our public school systems. We have a president and federal government that makes sweeping changes based on opinion polls instead of facts and arguments. We have ridiculous policies like government shut down day. Our government micromanages us, taxes us, puts us in debt, enables us, &c. sticks its nose into places it don’t belong. Don’t get me started on the banks and economy.

As I pointed out it wouldn’t be much effort to make a Monarch in America. Put him as president, take away 7/8ths of the current president powers (or more, so that what is designated in the constitution is actually what the Monarch has the ability to do and no more) and set up a PM (or not) give the states back their rights and release the laws that limit the President. Walla, we have ourselves a genuine American blooded Monarch.

As well, it would allow for accountability. We would know who the problem is, and the Monarch would be slow to make adjustments that would clearly go against the people’s will. On the other hand, the Monarch wouldn’t have to make choices based on opinion polls and instead make choices based on arguments (that is to say if the decision even needed to go to him).

33

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).
[/quote]

Sorry to hear that you’ve taken a step backward.

34

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]

We already have a system in place for that. Basically what I’m advocating here is that we ditch the opinion man on capital hill, and have a Monarch who is still bound by the constitution and we resolve the power of the federal (monarch) government. See the problem now, is that our current Monarch gets released every 4-8 years so to point to one man and say, this is your fault. You have Bush people saying it’s not Bush it’s Clinton and Obama, you have Obama and Clinton people saying it’s not them it’s the Bush family. Back and forth and nothing gets done. So, obviously the past couple administrations haven’t been working out, so let’s roll back to 1774 and let’s have a constitutional Monarch. We can still have the same document, change it around a little. Heck maybe we can find a Washington or an Adams to be King.

As well, the monarch will be kept in check by the threat of succession and nullification. Just like America did with King George III.

35

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]

My guess would be that we all get together and kill the monarch.

Traditional Christianity has tended to support Monarchy as the ideal, but only in a nearly wholly Christian country.[/quotes]

That’s because traditionally Christianity (except for the British Crown) and Judaism has insisted that the King cannot be the head of the faith.

[quote]
I like the idea of hiring a national CEO who’s job is to run the country like a buisiness, and who can only be checked by certain actions of congress or courts-maybe congress being simply an elected branch that appoints judges, and judges being able to protect individuals rights or impeach the CEO.[/quote]

That is pretty much what we already have. Look at us now, awesome progress.

Right now the Commander-in-chief has the control of the military, but constitutionally doesn’t have control over declaring war…except he does…

36

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

37

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]

If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power. Then you wouldnt have the problem with big business. I dont see how a king would sort this out. In the feudal society you did have a strong aristocratic class that had influence on how the nation where run and the king could not ignore them, he had to make compromise with them or the country would fell into civil war. The owners of big business is the modern aristocrats and they would still have great influence in a system with a president or a king. Its not democracy that are to blame for this, but your former love - capitalism.

And what should it be and who are you to make that call for everyone else.

Well if there is someone who should have anything to say about have the school is run, its the people who run aka the people who work within the school system. Ideally the parents and students should also have saying, but if the current situation is that the teachers control the educational system I cant see that as something weird. Its better than a group of bureacrats or capital interrests having total control. btw: I am from the rest of the world so to speak and I dont laugh at the american school system, if there is any laughing of the americans it is about theire religious hysteria, the frequency of commercials on your TVchannels, your midddelclass`s materialism( not philosophical materialism ) and when it comes to schools, we europeen raises eyebrows over the creationist involment in the school system and that students pledge the flag in the morning. The teacher union we dont laugh at.

An a king would change this how? Wouldt putting a system up that gave people more direct control be a better solution. Aslong as you have an small group of people distant from the average people than they are going to make decisions that suits them rather than what suits the masses. Egoism is a real thing therefor the best solution would be to create a system where no one are able to gain power that puts them above others. If the common masses where in control they would probably set up a system that served theire interrests and the bankers are not part of the common masses so they would probably not get a bailout or having control over the banks for that matter.

I am no person to judge if the american people would vote in favor for a permanent king or not. you can be right.

38

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

39

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]

If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power. Then you wouldnt have the problem with big business. I dont see how a king would sort this out. In the feudal society you did have a strong aristocratic class that had influence on how the nation where run and the king could not ignore them, he had to make compromise with them or the country would fell into civil war. The owners of big business is the modern aristocrats and they would still have great influence in a system with a president or a king. Its not democracy that are to blame for this, but your former love - capitalism.

[/quote]

Poppycock.

40

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.