The Restoration of The British Monarchy. Is It Possible? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14864026
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I would not.


Well then, we are at an impasse.

You believe there is a single purpose for a regulation, I do not, so I see no reason to answer your question and I am suspicious that you are attempting your typical tactics of derailing conversations into minutia that are rarely relevant to the conversation at hand.

You let me know why you are interested in pressing this point, and I will let you know if its a road of dialogue I am interested in pursuing, but i am not going to waste time with your trolling. If you want to have sincere conversation thats fine, but I will not get into a pissing match with you here.
#14864027
@Oxymandias,

excellent stuff, and the english reads great, so I am assuming your translating skills are quite good.

The points you highlight are excellent and I would have to agree. How about i wire you some money and you translate the whole article by Abdal al Alim for me? :D
#14864033
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well then, we are at an impasse.

You believe there is a single purpose for a regulation, I do not, so I see no reason to answer your question and I am suspicious that you are attempting your typical tactics of derailing conversations into minutia that are rarely relevant to the conversation at hand.

You let me know why you are interested in pressing this point, and I will let you know if its a road of dialogue I am interested in pursuing, but i am not going to waste time with your trolling. If you want to have sincere conversation thats fine, but I will not get into a pissing match with you here.


You get triggered easily.

The point of regulations is to protect the average layperson consumer from non-apparent defects in the goods or services they purchase.

This is true for PCB storage, handrail height, food additives, medical treatment, and pretty much everything else I can think of.

To successfully predict risk, regulatory agencies require scientific analyses of the conditions under which these goods and services can cause harm.

The era of monarchy was a scientific dark age and there were no consumer protections. Since this is not an inherent trait of monarchies and is more of a histrical coincidence, the link between regulations and minarchies is just a historical coincidence.
#14864040
@Victoribus Spolia

I think you should hire someone much more qualified than I am. There are some aspects to Abdal al Alim that I simply don't know how to translate and would have to made from scratch. You need to hire a good Arabic translator preferably one who is both Arab and British and a very good writer preferably a German-American continental philosopher or academic. Then make sure for there to be extensive cooperation between these two people so that the work is complete in it's writing and translation. You may also need to get Abdal al Alim himself involved in the project although you don't seem to possess the money necessary to do all of this and go to Cairo don't you?

I would do this myself but I too do not possess the amount of money to do so and my financial adviser would probably advise against this action.
#14864263
Pants-of-dog wrote:The era of monarchy was a scientific dark age and there were no consumer protections. Since this is not an inherent trait of monarchies and is more of a histrical coincidence, the link between regulations and minarchies is just a historical coincidence.


That could only be proven by comparing active monarchies v. representative governments today and seeing if there was a difference in their regulatory practices.

Otherwise, you cannot prove that it was just a coincidence. Your argument proves too much, as they say.
#14864265
Oxymandias wrote:I think you should hire someone much more qualified than I am. There are some aspects to Abdal al Alim that I simply don't know how to translate and would have to made from scratch. You need to hire a good Arabic translator preferably one who is both Arab and British and a very good writer preferably a German-American continental philosopher or academic. Then make sure for there to be extensive cooperation between these two people so that the work is complete in it's writing and translation. You may also need to get Abdal al Alim himself involved in the project although you don't seem to possess the money necessary to do all of this and go to Cairo don't you?

I would do this myself but I too do not possess the amount of money to do so and my financial adviser would probably advise against this action.


Don't be such a pussy, just do it. FOR POFO!!! :muha1:
#14864273
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That could only be proven by comparing active monarchies v. representative governments today and seeing if there was a difference in their regulatory practices.

Otherwise, you cannot prove that it was just a coincidence. Your argument proves too much, as they say.


Sure, as long as we agree that there is no logical reason to think that monarchies are better at creating less regualtions while protecting consumers.

Also, the moderators prefer if you do not double post.
#14864293
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, as long as we agree that there is no logical reason to think that monarchies are better at creating less regualtions while protecting consumers.


Why would I agree to that? That is the subject under contention....

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, the moderators prefer if you do not double post.


Thanks for the heads-up. I forget about that sometimes because some of the other forums I have been a member of don't make that a rule. Its actually a good idea, I can see how that could be a problem.
#14864330
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Why would I agree to that? That is the subject under contention....


Because no one has presented a single good reeason to think that monarchies are better at handling regulations.

If you wish to believe things for which there is no supporting evidence or logic, go ahead.
#14864471
Presumably, the kind of thing that VS is looking for is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. With regulations such as banning women from driving, or all kinds of religious practices. Off hand, the only kingdoms I can think of where the monarch actually exercises most of the power are Islamic, or tiny tax havens like Liechtenstein or Monaco. For a sizable country like the UK, it would probably need a similar sort of religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, torture and human rights violations to back up the idea of a 'divine right of kings' with the superstitious beliefs that entails.
#14864485
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Presumably, the kind of thing that VS is looking for is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. With regulations such as banning women from driving, or all kinds of religious practices. Off hand, the only kingdoms I can think of where the monarch actually exercises most of the power are Islamic, or tiny tax havens like Liechtenstein or Monaco. For a sizable country like the UK, it would probably need a similar sort of religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, torture and human rights violations to back up the idea of a 'divine right of kings' with the superstitious beliefs that entails.


Yep. :D
#14864501
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Presumably, the kind of thing that VS is looking for is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. With regulations such as banning women from driving, or all kinds of religious practices. Off hand, the only kingdoms I can think of where the monarch actually exercises most of the power are Islamic, or tiny tax havens like Liechtenstein or Monaco. For a sizable country like the UK, it would probably need a similar sort of religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism, torture and human rights violations to back up the idea of a 'divine right of kings' with the superstitious beliefs that entails.


That is a good example!

...Of a monarchy adding even more regulations than democracies and of regulations that do not actually protect anyone.
#14864503
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is a good example!

...Of a monarchy adding even more regulations than democracies and of regulations that do not actually protect anyone.


Under your definition those things would not be regulations though :hmm:
#14864515
Pants-of-dog wrote:For sure. In which case, you still have no evidence for the claim that monrachies are better at regulations.


That is because, in light of your first objections about historical coincidence, I argued more evidence would need to be gathered:

Like when I said:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:That could only be proven by comparing active monarchies v. representative governments today and seeing if there was a difference in their regulatory practices.

Otherwise, you cannot prove that it was just a coincidence. Your argument proves too much, as they say.
#14864794
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you explained why you have absolutely no evidence for your claim.

Now you have repeated your explanation.


So why press the matter? Your argument proves too much to claim that a lack of regulations v. historic monarchy was merely a pre-scientific coincidence.

Likewise, whether or not monarchies or representative democracies have either more or less regulations than one another has yet to be demonstrated by anyone.

So, whats your point?
#14864796
Likewise, whether or not monarchies or representative democracies have either more or less regulations than one another has yet to be demonstrated by anyone.

All this talk about whether monarchies or democracies have more or fewer regulations is meaningless. Modern democracies, for the most part, have something closely approximating a free market (whether heavily regulated or not; usually not), whereas European monarchs would hand out monopolies to their favourite courtiers just because they had played the lute particularly well at that banquet last night and amused His Royal Mightiness. Aloisius Popinjay III would end up being the only merchant permitted by law to import, say, tobacco into the monarch's realm. The fact that his little racket was not regulated is irrelevant; he was running a fucking monopoly, by royal decree no less. This has nothing to do with free markets or entrepreneurship. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
#14864799
Potemkin wrote:All this talk about whether monarchies or democracies have more or fewer regulations is meaningless. Modern democracies, for the most part, have something closely approximating a free market (whether heavily regulated or not; usually not), whereas European monarchs would hand out monopolies to their favourite courtiers just because they had played the lute particularly well at that banquet last night and amused His Royal Mightiness. Aloisius Popinjay III would end up being the only merchant permitted by law to import, say, tobacco into the monarch's realm. The fact that his little racket was not regulated is irrelevant; he was running a fucking monopoly, by royal decree no less. This has nothing to do with free markets or entrepreneurship. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.


Let me just be clear.

I am not a libertarian and I am not arguing that monarchies are more free-trade. I am actually quite opposed to free-trade, I am a neo-mercantilist who has no problems with nepotism or imperial charters...or even theocratic oppression for that matter.....what PoD and I are bickering about (and quite pointlessly as all conversations I have with him usually are), is whether or not monarchies were intrusive into the lives of individual citizens via regulations on a level equal or greater than that of representative governments today. he seems to concede the point that this is historically true but argues it was merely a historical coincidence as he equates nearly all regulations with scientific advancement and argues the reason monarchies had fewer regulations was not implicit in the form of government itself but in its scientific backwardness.

I responded that this can only be demonstrated by a comparison of modern democracies v. modern monarchies to see if this, in fact, is the case. I have not done that research yet and so I do not have a definitive answer at this time.

This whole thing was brought up by a discussion of the thesis of Kuhnheldt-Leiden in his work "Liberty of Equality?" who argues that monarchies are self-interested authoritarian hierarchies that are not totalitarian either in the sense of mob-totalitarianism as in representative government, or as in individual totalitarianism as in the case of Hitler or a mao. Rather, he argues that the preservation of family rule in governance has typically required the monarch to avoid the intrusive behavior of regulation that is common in "democratic societies" today in order to prevent rebellion and overthrow.

He makes some compelling points, and he sees a direct connection between democratic and totalitarian institutions (much based on his experience as an Austrian who witnessed the rise of Hitler out of democratic institutions).

I don't agree with his libertarianism or his romantic view of Catholicism (or much of his religious analysis at all). But he is undoubtedly a brilliant and underrated and highly original political theorist.

I'll link, this most unusual book, here again:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Equality ... r+equality
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 16

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]