Bastille Day

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Dale is being a little more ornary than normal on this subject.

Regardless, a goverment of the people, no matter how messy, is infinitely more preferable than a goverment in which the average person does not have a say.

A benelovent monarch no matter how compassionate, only lasts a lifetime.

This is not a dig, just a curiosity, are your views on monarchs in any way related to your religious views? King of kings and all that.

Brickell -

I suppose I'm arguing less for monarchy (as if it would ever happen), as I am questioning the romantic view of democracy, which guarantees neither freedom nor civility. I think Westerners tend to romanticize democracy (even our president does), and we tend to negatively stereotype monarchy. Indeed, Hitler was democratically elected and sustained by popular plebescite. Hey, the people got their way in Hitler, just as they got their way in the French Revolution, the bloodfest that it was. And by the same token, I'll wager that many more kings than not ruled charitably over peoples who enjoyed greater freedoms than we in many respects.

[Dale]

Kartuna

Kartuna ?

[BrandonTO416]

France can be credited for starting the domino effect which sent plenty of Kings and Queens packing their bags in England - therefore we can all tip our hats off to France for progressing democracy in the world.

I just now realized my mistake. I meant to say Europe - not England. Sorry for the confusion.

[Dale]

Brickell, by the way, though I do not agree with them, I'd guess that most Christians would strenuously argue that democracy is biblical, God-ordained.

To your earlier question as to whether my understanding of scripture influences my view of governance, given that God (and Christ) is a monarch, and that rulership and obediance accord with freedom, then yes, I certainly do not find the idea of monarchy distasteful, perhaps unlike the vast majority of Americans (and christians).

[Brickell]

Dale:

Respectfully, Thanks. I wouldn't expect most to answer that question in an intelligent and nondefensive way, regardless of affiliation.

I'll agree that perhaps we have a romantiscized view of democracy. I'll admit it's not perfect but I think of it as more of a process we are trying to rise to and not a finished product. Not all democracies are good just as not all kings are good, but on the whole, I know which one I'd chose.

[Dale]

Dale:

Respectfully, Thanks. I wouldn't expect most to answer that question in an intelligent and nondefensive way, regardless of affiliation.

I'll agree that perhaps we have a romantiscized view of democracy. I'll admit it's not perfect but I think of it as more of a process we are trying to rise to and not a finished product. Not all democracies are good just as not all kings are good, but on the whole, I know which one I'd chose.

Well, I was just getting revved up to really lay into democracy, then you just come along and say the nicest things. Aw, shucks. Go ahead and have your mob rule.

[Spartan]

The thing is, with a deomocracy you as an individual can feel like you have at least some influnce in government. There are more ways to participate that voting too. A monarchy gives you no input, and the ruler just decides what is to be done. He or she also has his whole life to do what he or she wants- good or bad. With a democracy, there is a limit to how long this can go on. Even our worst president doesn't come close to one of those bad kings. A President has to answer to someone, a king does not.

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Except that belief in a God is not a Monarchy as you are free to change your beliefs to suit your needs. And remember we are talking about Monarchies as implemented in the 18th century. You mention romanticising Democracy but pondering about the Christian god and his role as a King is doing the same thing.

BTW, since we are splitting hairs these now, I'll bring up the point that the USA & France are not democracies, They are republics. i.e. representative government. Citizens don't vote on matters of state as they would in a true Democracy. Instead, they elect officials that vote on state matters.

In the reference made above to Hitler, the citizens of that country did not elect Hitler to the post of Chancellor. He was appointed this role and later, the Reichstag dissolved itself and transferred all legislative power to Hitler for period of 4 years. Of course now that Hitler was a dictator his power never expired, and the Nazification of Germany began. So in this one case you have a classic example of why turning over power to one person, who is no longer responsible to the people, (Monarch) is a very bad system. The Germans, and for that matter the rest of the world, paid dearly for this mistake. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is not true that absolute power currupts absolutly, not necessarily. It's just something they've taught us to say in school. That said, most of the monarchies in modern times have been constitutional monarchies, in which case even the king is constrained by law, and there are provisions to depose him if necessary.

It's not true that monarchy gives people no say. It depends on the monarch.

And it's not necessarily true that people in democracies have more influence over government.

Finally, more on Hitler later, but he fondly called himself an "arch democrat".

[Guest donaltopablo]

They are republics

Say, if we're splitting hairs. The US is a democratic republic. We vote for our officials, who vote for us on matters, or in some cases, officials pass bills that are put to public vote (common in California). We aren't a true democracy, or a true republic, we have a combination depending on state, federal, local levels, etc.

[Cotuit]

Splitting further, aren't we actually a federal democratic republic?

[Dale]

Splitting further, aren't we actually a federal democratic republic?

True, fortunately we haven't completely departed from the Founders who devised a system with constraints upon the populace, fearing mob rule as they did.

[Dale]

The thing is, with a deomocracy you as an individual can feel like you have at least some influnce in government. There are more ways to participate that voting too. A monarchy gives you no input, and the ruler just decides what is to be done. He or she also has his whole life to do what he or she wants- good or bad. With a democracy, there is a limit to how long this can go on. Even our worst president doesn't come close to one of those bad kings. A President has to answer to someone, a king does not.

One of the deficiencies of democracy is that it does not provide for continuity. A monarch is removed from pressures to act on this or that issue and has time to enact and develop strategies profitable for the nation. Whereas in a democracy, this or that vital enterprise dies with the president when he is voted out of office or reaches his term limit.

Also, Mencken said, "In a setled monarchy ... the king need not worry about clinging to power. In a republic, the head of state, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker".

Of course, many Americans would say, "That's correct. That's what we want." Which is eesentially saying many Americans want to hire a follower and not a leader.

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Actually the USA has become a Oligarchy.

"Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed. This power may not always be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the "real" power of an office. In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a "figurehead") who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation."

I think this sums up the present situation in the USA pretty well.

Oh, so you're not opposed to oligarchy ? You just want a different family at the helm ?

[BrandonTO416]

Half the stuff you are talking about has nothing to do with Bastille Day or the festivities in France.

[Dale]

Half the stuff you are talking about has nothing to do with Bastille Day or the festivities in France.

It wasn't me. I'm more than happy to go back to talking about how shameful it is to celebrate Bastille Day.

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Well, you should be careful not to jump to conclusions such as the one you made here. You seem to do that a lot. I stated an opinion. Doesn't mean I am in support of it. Quite the contrary, I think the present oligarchy in the USA stinks with 2/3rds of the House elected from gerrymandered "safe" districts and a President who was appointed by the courts.

What the hell are you talking about ? You just don't like me and that's the long and the short of it.

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Now you're just being silly. I know how to multi-task. Why would you assume that I cannot debate with / without emotion, on and off a bicycle.

[Dale]

And did I really jump to conclusions ? We know you dislike the notion of oligarchy, right ? And I would imagine you desire to see Kerry prevail over Bush, right ?

[Cotuit]

Half the stuff you are talking about has nothing to do with Bastille Day or the festivities in France.

Indeed, this thread was put up to mark an occassion, not start a political debate, it has degraded from that, through a debate about monarchies and democracies, and now it has hit the wall of Bush v. Kerry. I'm shutting it down.