[Pants-of-dog]

I never claimed causation in the logical sense, and indeed, ALL observations of physical and historical phenomena are and can only be correlations, as no physical or historical event can be said to be composed of a logically necessary relationship; however, the reason the senate fell is for the same reasons democracies have been historically known to fall, which is because of corruption, inefficiency, and expanding power. This is meant to be an inductive and not a deductive inference. Which should go without saying.

And thus is a different claim from the original claim that democracies will inevitably lead to corruption, inefficiency, and expanding power.

I can think of democracies that fell for other reasons, such as invasion.

No I will not, because this is not a legitimate request of evidence for debate, but an act of trolling and sophistry.

So I will dismiss these claims as probably being incorrect.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And thus is a different claim from the original claim that democracies will inevitably lead to corruption, inefficiency, and expanding power.

How so? I never claimed that all democracies fall from such. So how can you make this charge?

I can think of democracies that fell for other reasons, such as invasion.

I never denied this, so what is your point in bringing it up?

So I will dismiss these claims as probably being incorrect.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Pants-of-dog]

How so? I never claimed that all democracies fall from such. So how can you make this charge?

Awesome. So we agree that democraices are not necessarily going to fail because of the reasons you gave.

In fact, monarchies may be just as prone to this.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Comsidering how much and how often you complain about it, yes.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Awesome. So we agree that democracies are not necessarily going to fail because of the reasons you gave.

If you mean necessarily in the literal sense, of being inevitably the case in every single democracy ever in existence, in all times and places, as a causal reality. Than yes we agree, but I never said otherwise. So good job pointing out, pretty much nothing.

In fact, monarchies may be just as prone to this.

I would not agree that they are "just as prone" as most monarchies transitioned or became democracies over time; whereas, historic democracies transitioned towards more autocratic ends historically. (both of these points especially being true in Rome). These being inductive observations.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does this support your claim?

[Victoribus Spolia]

How does this support your claim?

How does what support my claim? To what are you referring?

[Pants-of-dog]

Let’s summarise what we discussed so far.

Some democracies fall because of corruption, inefficiency, and expanding power.

Some do not.

While this may happen more frequently with democracies (as compared to monarchies), it also may not happen more frequently.

As for regulations, there seems to be no evidence that democracies are more likely to craft intrusive regulations.

[Potemkin]

As for regulations, there seems to be no evidence that democracies are more likely to craft intrusive regulations.

And if we're taking Rome as an example, then I think it's worth pointing out that Rome was a (limited) democracy for almost half a millennium, about as long as it was an autocratic Empire. And, furthermore, there was more regulation of the economy and of Roman civil society under the Caesars than there had ever been under the senators. Domitian even ordered that every citizen must enter the trade or profession of his father. That sort of puts 'onerous' regulations about window sills into perspective, don't it? Lol.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And if we're taking Rome as an example, then I think it's worth pointing out that Rome was a (limited) democracy for almost half a millennium, about as long as it was an autocratic Empire. And, furthermore, there was more regulation of the economy and of Roman civil society under the Caesars than there had ever been under the senators. Domitian even ordered that every citizen must enter the trade or profession of his father. That sort of puts 'onerous' regulations about window sills into perspective, don't it? Lol.

I would not make a 1-to-1 correlation between caesars and monarchy. There was a Roman Monarchy prior to the rise of a representative government in Rome. The end of the Roman Monarchy was revolutionary and resulted in the Senate which lasted until it collapsed under its own weight resulting in the rise of the Caesars.

So the whole "sils" conversation would more apply to the regulatory practices of the Roman monarchy at the time King Superbus and preceding when it comes to modern-to-ancient times comparisons. The Caesars, as a species, are closer to that of modern dictators that arise out of representative governments rather than the monarchs that tend to precede them.

The rise of monarchs is natural and tends to arise out of primitive states (usually tribal confederations). Representative governments arise out of monarchies, usually by the demands of a landed gentry or an angry general populace, and dictators/caesars arise out of representative governments in light of their inefficiency in times of crisis. Dictators, as was argued over-and-over again in this thread, take the reigns of the bureaucratic networks and regulatory systems established originally by the representative governments and then usually expand upon them.

This is why, as was argued, monarchies are not as intrusive as dictators, because monarchs precede democracies, democracies expand bureaucracy and regulation, and dictators take over these established systems and laws and further expand upon them.

Hence, on a spectrum, the most totalitarian is the dictator and the least is the king, the representative government is a transitional in this; however, monarchies and dictatorships, though being opposite in their totalitarian character are typically the same in their authoritarian character, with such being diffused in representative systems.

Thus, the Roman example serves to prove my point, not contradict it.

[Pants-of-dog]

This sounds like you took the evolution of societies out of a video game rather than real life.

But it still supports the idea that monarchies are not better at crafting unintrusive methods of protecting concsumers from defects that are not apparent. They simply ignored these issues, people got hurt, etc. until the democracies came about with capitalism, and then regulations came about as a result of that.

[Potemkin]

I would not make a 1-to-1 correlation between caesars and monarchy. There was a Roman Monarchy prior to the rise of a representative government in Rome. The end of the Roman Monarchy was revolutionary and resulted in the Senate which lasted until it collapsed under its own weight resulting in the rise of the Caesars.

So the whole "sils" conversation would more apply to the regulatory practices of the Roman monarchy at the time King Superbus and preceding when it comes to modern-to-ancient times comparisons. The Caesars, as a species, are closer to that of modern dictators that arise out of representative governments rather than the monarchs that tend to precede them.

The rise of monarchs is natural and tends to arise out of primitive states (usually tribal confederations). Representative governments arise out of monarchies, usually by the demands of a landed gentry or an angry general populace, and dictators/caesars arise out of representative governments in light of their inefficiency in times of crisis. Dictators, as was argued over-and-over again in this thread, take the reigns of the bureaucratic networks and regulatory systems established originally by the representative governments and then usually expand upon them.

This is why, as was argued, monarchies are not as intrusive as dictators, because monarchs precede democracies, democracies expand bureaucracy and regulation, and dictators take over these established systems and laws and further expand upon them.

Hence, on a spectrum, the most totalitarian is the dictator and the least is the king, the representative government is a transitional in this; however, monarchies and dictatorships, though being opposite in their totalitarian character are typically the same in their authoritarian character, with such being diffused in representative systems.

Thus, the Roman example serves to prove my point, not contradict it.

I award you 9.5 out of 10 for that backflip, VS. Your rhetorical gymnastics can be impressive, I'll give you credit for that. In fact, however, you have elsewhere compared the restoration of monarchy with the rise of the imperial system of governance in ancient Rome, so you are actually implying a correlation between caesars and monarchy. I happen to agree with your point here that they are not the same thing - the emperor-system was progressive for its time, and kept the social peace between the plebs and the optimates for the rest of Roman history. From that point on, the only civil wars which occurred were waged to decide who would get to be emperor rather than being specifically class conflicts. Any authoritarian political system which arises from the present dispensation is likely to bear more resemblance to the emperor-system of ancient Rome rather than the monarchies of medieval Europe, for the reasons you've outlined above - democratic systems tend to collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions, and a centralised authority must arise to keep the social peace between the classes. This is how Napoleon I and III saw themselves, it's how Hitler and Mussolini saw themselves, but it's assuredly not how the British monarchs ever saw themselves. And far from becoming less intrusive in people's lives, such a centralised authority will and must become more intrusive. After all, how else can class conflict be resolved? No, your minarchist 'monarchism' is a still-born idea which is utterly disconnected from historical, social and economic reality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But it still supports the idea that monarchies are not better at crafting unintrusive methods of protecting concsumers from defects that are not apparent. They simply ignored these issues, people got hurt, etc. until the democracies came about with capitalism, and then regulations came about as a result of that.

No one said they were better at "crafting it." I completely acknowledge that they simply ignored these issues and people got hurt. I completely agree. So apparently all of your posts-upon-posts were nothing more your usual sophistry and a waste of time. I never said anything more than this and you have now fully conceded the point I had made from the start.

Congrats, you did a lot of arguing to only concede that I was right in an albeit condescending and dismissive way.

I award you 9.5 out of 10 for that backflip, VS. Your rhetorical gymnastics can be impressive, I'll give you credit for that. In fact, however, you have elsewhere compared the restoration of monarchy with the rise of the imperial system of governance in ancient Rome, so you are actually implying a correlation between caesars and monarchy. I happen to agree with your point here that they are not the same thing - the emperor-system was progressive for its time, and kept the social peace between the plebs and the optimates for the rest of Roman history. From that point on, the only civil wars were waged to decide who would get to be emperor rather than being specifically class conflicts. Any authoritarian political system which arises from the present dispensation is likely to bear more resemblance to the emperor-system of ancient Rome rather than the monarchies of medieval Europe, for the reasons you've outlined above - democratic systems tend to collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions, and a centralised authority must arise to keep the social peace between the classes. This is how Napoleon I and III saw themselves, it's how Hitler and Mussolini saw themselves, but it's assuredly not how the British monarchs ever saw themselves. And far from becoming less intrusive in people's lives, such a centralised authority will and must become [i]more intrusive. After all, how else can class conflict be resolved? No, your minarchist 'monarchism' is a still-born idea which is utterly disconnected from historical, social and economic reality.

Well thank you for the compliments (i think).


1. Buts lets keep things in context, I argued that monarchies were historically less instrusive only as a response to the claim that they were the same as modern dictatorships. That was emphatically NOT what my OP was about.

2. That a restored British Monarchy would be more Caesarian than historic monarchies is both admitted and desired on my part; however, I do believe that such, if strongly monarchal, will be preferably to a more arbitary dictatorship.

3. Ultimately, I admit, fully, that I compare caesars and monarchs, because both are authoritarian, both are strong men, both are not historically totalitarian. I hate democracy, sympathize for the need for dictatorships, but truly desire monarchy. I will settle for a Caesar over a senate if I can't get a king, but would be very ok with a restored British monarchy.....and I think I may be getting that in my lifetime.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, it was you who just conceded to me.

But whatever. As long as we agree that monarchies are not better at making regulations.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that monarchies are not better at making regulations.

I will agree to that, absolutely.

[Potemkin]

If you want people to take you seriously, VS, then you need to stop these rhetorical gymnastics. It convinces no-one and just makes you look immature. You're better than that.

[Tainari88]

If you want people to take you seriously, VS, then you need to stop these rhetorical gymnastics. It convinces no-one and just makes you look immature. You're better than that.

No he is not. Hee hee.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want people to take you seriously, VS, then you need to stop these rhetorical gymnastics. It convinces no-one and just makes you look immature. You're better than that.

Oh come now, be fair.

I did not start this thread arguing for minarchist monarchy, but as a future hoped-for imperial state (in the OP):

Is this true or false my friend?

I argued for a minarchist monarchy in response to the comparison made later on that historic monarchies and dictatorships were the same thing.

Is this true or false my friend?

Lets be honest with each other, I know you are better than that too and I think we owe each other that much respect.

I really don't think I spoke in an unclear or intentionally deceptive way on this entire thread (and I apologize if I did), but I think the confusion only comes from the fact that this conversation has gone so far into the woods since my original OP that the original point was lost-sight-of.

It is not rhetorical gymnastics to point out that the present defense of historic monarchies being less intrusive is not the same as what I advocated for in the OP. Thats all.

My position has been consistent, anyone can show me otherwise.

No he is not. Hee hee.

@Tainari88,

I know you hate my guts because you hate my views (which I think is intellectually unfair), but how is this anything but an ad-hominem? I don't go around on your threads taking unprovoked shots at your character for no reason.

[Rugoz]

Is there any political philosophy out there claiming that monarchies are less totalitarian? By that I don't mean modern day lobotarians, but philosphers who lived at the time when monarchies were still in vogue.

I suppose the ancient Greeks had sufficient experience with all systems in their various city states.

The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88,

I know you hate my guts because you hate my views (which I think is intellectually unfair), but how is this anything but an ad-hominem? I don't go around on your threads taking unprovoked shots at your character for no reason.

You don't merit hate VS. I respect real Right Wing intellectuals. Not people who live in fantasy all day and don't know the basics but want to think they do.

Live up to your Christianity and stop deluding yourself. Lying to yourself about what you stand for is not going to help you at all.

You are not better than what you write. I don't know you from Adam. What you write if I took it seriously would force me to conclude you are not a sane man at all. But I don't know for sure. No one does. Just the stuff you write.

@Potemkin is giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't have to. I already have debated false Christians before and they never change their mind, or become 'better' at being Christians. They only feed off of negative energy and try to live off of attention they don't deserve.

Life is too short for such people. We only have a limited amount of time in this world. You are already worried about skull status here. That says it all.

I don't have to hate anyone. Your own bad habits will do it for you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You don't merit hate VS. I respect real Right Wing intellectuals. Not people who live in fantasy all day and don't know the basics but want to think they do.

Live up to your Christianity and stop deluding yourself. Lying to yourself about what you stand for is not going to help you at all.

You are not better than what you write. I don't know you from Adam. What you write if I took it seriously would force me to conclude you are not a sane man at all. But I don't know for sure. No one does. Just the stuff you write.

@Potemkin is giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't have to. I already have debated false Christians before and they never change their mind, or become 'better' at being Christians. They only feed off of negative energy and try to live off of attention they don't deserve.

Life is too short for such people. We only have a limited amount of time in this world. You are already worried about skull status here. That says it all.

I don't have to hate anyone. Your own bad habits will do it for you.