longfenglim wrote:



First, you speak of the monarchies as 'a waste of taxpaters' money', I think this objection is unfounded, in that monarchies would be cheaper to uphold than our current form of government. As our government is composed of several statesman of varying degrees of importance, it follows that we must pay more to uphold a democracy, and the salary of many statesman, than a monarchy, with less. In a monarchy, there is the King and his family, who, I assume, can live in Royal luxury on the salary of a single statesman. Thus, it can be said that we are, in fact, paying for several kings in our current system, and, by reducing the amount of employees, a monarchy would be less expensive.

Secondly, you say that they are 'unaccountable', which is true, and which is actually a good thing, in that we now have fully separated the hoi polloi from the government. The wisdom of the king and his ministers would no longer be hindered by the ignorance of the mass, which are, usually, more prone to bigotry than an educated elite. It was, after all, a mob of workers who lynched black people during the Civil War draft protest, and not of elites, and it is the redneck southerner, the 'salt of the earth', who are part of the Klan. Thus, putting the power into the hands of the people effectively endorse mass prejudice, what is called, I believe, by Mill as 'Tyranny of the Majority'.

But, your history's a bit wrong, the founders of this nation separated from Britain not because of King George the third, (most Americans liked the King before the war), and the monarchy, but because of the acts of Parliament, which was elected by an British elite that didn't include American elites. So, the war was not about the Monarchy, rather,it was about American colonist having the same right to representation as the Briton (I use Briton, because the Act of Union which united England and Scotland and their respective parliaments was in 1707, a generation before our own Revolution). In fact, when America separated, the right to vote was based on property, just as it was in England.



We agree there.




No, America is a Democratic Republic, we elect our representatives, who goes to Washington with our mandate to represent the interest of his community. They get together to try and impose upon the nation what the many would like. But, here's the rub- why should this man claim to have my mandate, if I disagree with him? Why, shouldn't we just devolve the power from this fellow, who is almost as removed from me as a king, pretend to work with my mandate to pass whatever laws he pass. Thus, we have a senate that, ideally, would only work to promote a set of policies which a plurality of the community agrees to be better than the rest of the policies put forward by other, equally distant statesman, thus, we have the majoritarian interest working to impose common folly upon everyone. On the otherhand, it is clear our government's only a gathering of private individuals working together to promote shared private interests. A Monarch, on the other hand, is just as separated from the mob, where the majority opinion needs not affect him or his ministers, and where each ministers, rather than be chosen for slick tongues, would be chosen for suitability, as the king is groomed for the throne. Thus, we have a gathering of capable rulers to make decision unaffected by any interests, where the wealth of the nation is the king's wealth, and thus, making him above bribery, and where prosperity is assured.

Now, we look at the history of the world, there is no organisation but that of Monarchies with a few exceptions, the Roman Republic (an oligarchy which transformed into a glorious monarchy shortly thereafter), Athens (a democracy of the wealthy), Sparta (another oligarchy), etc. I have no idea what the Vajji Confederacy is, (indian it is, it is an exception to a land of many kingdoms) but the Iroquois Confederation was not a republican form of government, rather the Iroquois did not constitute a single tribe, the confederation was the ruler-ship of several cheifs, kings of their own tribes, who, in forming a confederation, share the power of kingship, in exchange to an unity and an alliance. Thus, it can be seen, rather, as a gathering of kings to make a decision that applies to all tribes within the confederation, but in exchange for larger man power and a larger army.

Another argument may be made using Peter's Principle.

In his book, 'The Peter Principle', Dr Laurence Peter rightly observe that people are promoted to their level of incompetence, that is, people are raised to a level where the responsibility of the job outweighs the ability of the person, making them ineligible for further promotion, and are forced, for the rest of their lives to continue to perform whatever responsibility they have badly. Thus, a good teacher may be raised to an incompetent principle, so too with a monarchy and a nobility- as the level of incompetence increases with position, we see clearly that the monarchy and the aristocracy, having so few position, greatly reduces the chances of someone being promoted beyond his ability- a King cannot be promoted, 'tis true, and the ministers start off higher than the rest, and will be promoted through a system where the classes and responsibility are so few, they will never reach their level of incompetence, and, likewise, where, at the bottom, the people who do reach the highest possible class will never be promoted beyond that, ensuring that they keep to a level that still within their competence. Therefore, it would seem, from this, that the Monarchies are more efficient societies, and therefore more 'modern', than democracies.