[Newfie-Con]

Good Day, today my class has started reading literature and debating the ideal society. I am arguing for a monarchy or fascist state with a state religion, the goals are to create a secure society which eliminates conflict efficiently and finds the right balance between personal freedom and the greater good of society. Later we may start an imaginary economy. So where should I go with this?

[starman2003]

I am arguing for a monarchy or a fascist state with a state religion..

You'd think a young newcomer would be more up to date than this. Regarding monarchy; you might as well try to revive Carcharodontosaurus. Same for a state religion. Of course fascism makes better sense, although in the current, real world, you can't use that title anymore.

..right balance between personal freedom and the greater good of society.

Any real fascist state would emphasize the latter.

[Potemkin]

You'd think a young newcomer would be more up to date than this. Regarding monarchy; you might as well try to revive Carcharodontosaurus. Same for a state religion.

We have a monarchy and an official state religion in Britain, both of which seem to work reasonably well.

Good Day, today my class has started reading literature and debating the ideal society. I am arguing for a monarchy or fascist state with a state religion, the goals are to create a secure society which eliminates conflict efficiently and finds the right balance between personal freedom and the greater good of society. Later we may start an imaginary economy. So where should I go with this?

Consider Communism. It's the rational choice.

[Thompson_NCL]

It's certainly rational to consider Communism. But following that line of thought, it's also rational to dicard it :P

[Cookie Monster]

It's certainly rational to consider Communism. But following that line of thought, it's also rational to dicard it :P

It's rational to consider communism, but it is wisdom to pursue it.

[Newfie-Con]

I know, its hard to argue for monarchy as most literally do not know that Canada has a queen. Those students who do are rather lewd regarding her. In regards to fascism everybody always associates it with National Socialist eugenic policies and do not truely understand what it is. All they care about regarding politics is quote " That N.... Obama sticking it to those white guys." In fact one of my teachers even called me a white power skinhead because I do not like Obama's policies apparently it "keeps the brown man down" and sang God Save the queen when I walked out. Personally I am more of a Conservative although I would gladly accept fascism or some modernized form of feudalism over the varying schools of Marxism.

[Figlio di Moros]

Totalitarianism isn't an ideal; it's a response to dystopian social disorders. Ideally, we'd all be perfect, socially-concious intelligent human beings without need of direction. In reality, society requires an authoritive power to help guide society in the right path.

What you need to consider is what powers do you want to describe your Monarch, how is the monarch chosen, what's his relation to the state religion, what state religion or form of religion, how will they interact w/ state authority... Once you start making decisions on these issues, you might start to see your political structure form. Just remember to eschew aesthetic and focus on substance; too many get caught up in the former and end up lacking the latter.

[starman2003]

I know, its hard to argue for monarchy..

Forget it, especially if you mean one with actual power as opposed to a figurehead. This is the 21st century, and monarchy (or its actual power) was on the way out in advanced countries by the 18th/19th.

In regards to fascism everybody always associates it with with National Socialist eugenic policies..

Add the fact that fascism was a failed enemy to its historical baggage. The basic ideas of fascism are OK but the title must change.

[Preston Cole]

Forget it, especially if you mean one with actual power as opposed to a figurehead. This is the 21st century, and monarchy (or its actual power) was on the way out in advanced countries by the 18th/19th.

I don't see how a monarchy would contradict the concept of an "absolute leader" that your Wholism proposes. The King, born in a politically experienced family, could perpetuate his genes and pass his power over to his children (who should, in theory, bear the same political expertise).

[starman2003]

(who should, in theory, bear the same political expertise)

Yep, in theory. In reality, it 's way too uncertain that a son will be as good as a father who founded the dynasty. Look at Commodus--an absolute disgrace compared to his father Marcus Aurelius. National leadership is way too important to be subject to the vagaries of blue blood. A strong State should be meritocratic. Maybe in the future it'll be possible to genetically engineer/clone great leaders. But for now and the near future, we should listen to plato.

[Figlio di Moros]

Except, Starman, intelligence is hereditay; by adding focused and strict education, it improves the capacity of that leader. There's also no reason to assume such a monarchy should follow a strict heredity(i.e, first-born son), when the Roman empire, HRE, and most early European kingdoms were elective monarchies. As late as the high middle ages, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth elected each monarch by general consensus(an unusual method, to be fair).

[starman2003]

Sure, the son might be as good as the old man. But it would be a lot better to just have a meritocratic system. That's pretty much how the great totalitarian states of the last century functioned. I believe Adolf was against hereditary succession, either for top post or any other significant one ("the head of the general staff is not preparing his son to succeed him"--something to that effect.) Oh sure, some future dictator may want his son to follow him. But I just can't see out and out monarchy making a comeback. It's not just a matter of competence. The basis of monarchy--"divine right"-is a dino if ever there was one.

[Preston Cole]

Thinking it through, I do agree that hereditary monarchy is too outdated for a modern dictatorship. A fair number of socialist dictatorships were (and are) actually engaged in a monarchical system of power transmission. We had that under Ceausescu, North Koreans have it, as well as Cubans. It's probably the reason they also occupy the last ladder on the progress pyramid.

[starman2003]

I'm not sure what to make of that. Father-son transition may be "natural" and tempting, but it may also reflect degeneration of those regimes. Gradually losing support, and feeling isolated, the rulers may have few if any they can trust anymore outside their families.

[Potemkin]

I'm not sure what to make of that. Father-son transition may be "natural" and tempting, but it may also reflect degeneration of those regimes. Gradually losing support, and feeling isolated, the rulers may have few if any they can trust anymore outside their families.

It's also a sign of the inherent instability of the political system. Syria is a good example of this - Assad's son became Syrian leader by acclamation a few years back, mainly because of the fear of a civil war without a clearly designated heir. Hereditary monarchy actually originated as a way of preserving political stability during a transfer of power in the absence of established democratic mechanisms for doing so.

[starman2003]

So in some cases there may be no choice but nepotism. Still, that's symptomatic of a crummy system or era. Ideally, there's enough support for a strong State or cause to ensure that the best rules, not any dope who can just stabilize the system. Personally, I'd be ashamed to rule essentially just because mammy and pappy were powerful enough to pull strings for me.

[Figlio di Moros]

Hereditary monarchy actually originated as a way of preserving political stability during a transfer of power in the absence of established democratic mechanisms for doing so.

Essentially... It's worth pointing out that hereditary monarchy evolved out of electoral monarchy, which is essentially the same system starman promotes. Aside from the connotation attached to it, I fail to see the issue w/ electorial monarchies, even if they generally operate hereditarially.

[starman2003]

Top party members or some other elite choosing a supreme ruler on the basis of merit is great, but "electoral monarchy" is a pretty horrid way to describe it. Just like "fascism," monarchy is a term best avoided-it smacks of the distant, archaic past. And the hereditary system should have no place in modern politics.

[Newfie-Con]

So in some cases there may be no choice but nepotism. Still, that's symptomatic of a crummy system or era. Ideally, there's enough support for a strong State or cause to ensure that the best rules, not any dope who can just stabilize the system. Personally, I'd be ashamed to rule essentially just because mammy and pappy were powerful enough to pull strings for me.

However in monarchy, the princes, dukes or heirs are bred and raised to be in power from day one. The best way to look at the ideal monarchy is to see the king/queen/emperor/duke as the ultimate civil servant who has given their entire life to the state. I am in no way saying that monarchy is immune from corruption but neither is any other form of government.

Top party members or some other elite choosing a supreme ruler on the basis of merit is great, but "electoral monarchy" is a pretty horrid way to describe it. Just like "fascism," monarchy is a term best avoided-it smacks of the distant, archaic past. And the hereditary system should have no place in modern politics.

I agree as we in the west drift farther away from our roots and heritage terms like "monarchy" become repulsive to the general population. If monarchy or similar forms of government are ever brought back, they must lack all trappings that would otherwise suggest their existence for a time until the people finally come back to their senses and embrace the ways of their forefathers.

[Figlio di Moros]

Top party members or some other elite choosing a supreme ruler on the basis of merit is great, but "electoral monarchy" is a pretty horrid way to describe it. Just like "fascism," monarchy is a term best avoided-it smacks of the distant, archaic past. And the hereditary system should have no place in modern politics.

We're not delivering this to the masses, we're discussing legitimate terms amongst ourselves. A strong executive, selected to serve for life term, is a monarchy. That we should call him something other than "King", "Prince", or "Emperor" is besides the point.

Newfie, I apologize for this getting sidetracked by Monarchy-bashing; have you given any thoughts to the political structure? Namely, ascendency of the throne, relation to state religion, etc?