The House of Romanov to rule over Kiribati... no, seriously.

[blah the Prussian]

So, apparently Kiribati, a small island nation in the Pacific, is considering giving three uninhabited islands to a restored Russian Tsardom, supported by political opponents of Putin. This will act as a parallel government until such a time as Putin is overthrown and the legitimate Monarchy is restored. And,cve cause for a story as strange as this it's sure as hell needed, here's a link: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-38798535?ocid=socialflow_twitter

So, what do I think of this? I'm happy, for several reasons. First of all, a Monarchy is a Monarchy, even if that Monarchy only rules a few hotels in the Pacific, so I'm ecstatic to see a new one rise. Secondly, and more significantly, this represents a sect of Rissian Monarchist's moving decisively away from the Putin regime, and presenting themselves as a credible opposition. This is BEAUTIFUL, because, with almost 1/3 of Russians supporting a restoration already, this gives them a real chance to make a decisive push by gaining support from opposition to Putin. This may be wishful thinking, but I'm happy to see Monarchism making any headway at all after the dissapointment that was Libya. So yeah, I'm ready for the Romanovs to rule SOMETHING again.

[NinjaMonkey]

How is this going to happen, given that the Romanov family were all massacred at Ekaterinburg in 1918?

[Rezzy]

9 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

How is this going to happen, given that the Romanov family were all massacred at Ekaterinburg in 1918?

They still had some relatives that had made it out before the Revolution got to them, though no direct heirs remain.  I'm not sure if Czarist Russia is the paragon of monarchy to look up to, though.

[Yojinbo]

According to Google Maps there's a place named "London" on Kiribati, another one called "Paris", one named "Poland" and yet another one named "Banana".

lol

[Rezzy]

6 minutes ago, Yojinbo said:

According to Google Maps there's a place named "London" on Kiribati, another one called "Paris", one named "Poland" and yet another one named "Banana".

lol

Banana sounds funny, but it's not uncommon to reuse famous city names as an homage.  There's a Paris, Illinois not to far from me, for instance.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

How is this going to happen, given that the Romanov family were all massacred at Ekaterinburg in 1918?

Extended families are a thing my dude. Current claimant is HIM Maria I. Also, I don't think Nicholas II was a paragon of monarchy to look up to, but I don't believe in denying an entire family their rights over the failures of one ruler.

[Acacia Sgt]

Ah, that's cool.

Needs more support. Also, probably a few other dynasties need eventual comebacks too.

[Rezzy]

23 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Ah, that's cool.

Needs more support. Also, probably a few other dynasties need eventual comebacks too.

If someone wants to give me an island to be Queen of, I wouldn't mind.  My father's line traces back to the Normans that came over to England in 1066, assuming no false paternity happened in the intervening thousand years.

 

It seems like an odd idea to resurrect the Czars, but Russian government hasn't really improved much in the century since they were overthrown.  There's bound to be somebody who can claim the Russian throne, if they wanted to, considering all of Europe's royalty was pretty much one big extended family by World War One.

[Excellen Browning]

Why settle for a Romanov when you could have a Rurik?

[blah the Prussian]

10 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Why settle for a Romanov when you could have a Rurik?

DAMN FALSE DMITRI REE

[Sarki Soliloquy]

It's really neat seeing such an old dynasty potentially continuing, but I've never gotten the appeal of monarchy in the 21st century? Care to enlighten this heretically-uncouth serf?

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Sarki said:

It's really neat seeing such an old dynasty potentially continuing, but I've never gotten the appeal of monarchy in the 21st century? Care to enlighten this heretically-uncouth serf?

WOULD I? Why yes, yes I would.

So, basically, let's look at the two forms of democratic Republics in our society, the Presidential and the Parliamentary. Presidential Republics are problematic because the involve the Head of State directly in politics. I believe that the Head of State should generally be a figurehead with no real power, because if they're involved in politics it makes them far too divisive to be head of state. Take Trump in America, for example. Regardless of how you feel about him, the number of people shouting "Not my President" shows you that he has fundamentally failed to be a symbol of the nation because of how divisive he is.

So, let's look at a Parliamentary Republic, eg most of Europe. In this case, the President has no actual power, which is an improvement, but there are still elections for him, elections taking up time and money. The money spent on elections, incidentally, evens out the cost of a Monarchy, especially when you consider that the President will live in a Palace anyway. Plus, as the monarch isn't elected they tend to be around for a long time, making them much better symbols. How many could name the Queen of the U.K., and how many could name the PM? 

Finally, I think that the monarch should have some role in politics. If Trump has demonstrated anything, it's that Separation of a powers quickly goes out the window once the same electorate is electing two branches directly, and one branch is appointed by an elected person. To have a true balance you need one branch to be unelected. Plus, a monarch could break deadlocks in Parliament; not only would that stop the country from grinding to a halt, it would also motivate politicians to work together. 

[Radiant head]

lmao what on earth

the flaws of liberal democracy indicate we need more/better democracy, not regress back to the feudal era.   

 

[blah the Prussian]

9 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

lmao what on earth

the flaws of liberal democracy indicate we need more/better democracy, not regress back to the feudal era.   

 

Monarchy absolutely does not equal feudalism, any more than free healthcare equals Totalitarian Communism. I've always been confused by people viewing Republicanism as more modern than Monarchies when Republics existed at the same time as Monarchies, and both predate Feudalism. And yes, I agree we need better democracy, i.e. Constitutional Monarchy. More... nah. The goal should be separation of powers, which is impossible when the same electorate is electing multiple branches.

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't think any big office should be unelected. so scotus should be elected by the people.

additionally, gridlock in congress should have some sort of way for the people to be involved.

[blah the Prussian]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i don't think any big office should be unelected. so scotus should be elected by the people.

additionally, gridlock in congress should have some sort of way for the people to be involved.

But, again that's not true separation of powers, and having SCOTUS elected would be a disaster for other reasons. The Supreme Court are about making decisions on the Constitution. The people should have the right to change the Constitution, but not make decisions based on it. We already have Supreme Court appointments being a political issue as is; do you really want elections where candidates can promise what parts of the Constitution they'll ignore? My perspective is that democracy is not an end goal, it is just another form of government leading to good governance. I think history has shown that it overall has the best track record, but not when the power of the people is unlimited. If you have all three branches of government directly elected by the people, you remove what little separation of powers America has left.

[Radiant head]

6 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Monarchy absolutely does not equal feudalism, any more than free healthcare equals Totalitarian Communism. I've always been confused by people viewing Republicanism as more modern than Monarchies when Republics existed at the same time as Monarchies, and both predate Feudalism. And yes, I agree we need better democracy, i.e. Constitutional Monarchy. More... nah. The goal should be separation of powers, which is impossible when the same electorate is electing multiple branches.

uh ok but there's a pretty good reason why monarchies never survive bourgeoisie revolutions. 

and still don't understand why leaders should go back to coming from a bloodline instead of from the sovereignty of the ruled though

Edited February 7, 2017 by Radiant head

[Acacia Sgt]

15 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

uh ok but there's a pretty good reason why monarchies never survive bourgeoisie revolutions. 

and still don't understand why leaders should go back to coming from a bloodline instead of from the sovereignty of the ruled though

But can you say the ruled really have sovereignty over who they chose? In principle, it only works if more than 50% choose the same person. Otherwise, you have more people not wanting the person than people who do. And at that point can you really say it's democratic?

Also, Elective Monarchy is a thing.

[blah the Prussian]

19 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

uh ok but there's a pretty good reason why monarchies never survive bourgeoisie revolutions. 

and still don't understand why leaders should go back to coming from a bloodline instead of from the sovereignty of the ruled though

I don't know, Monarchies did a pretty good job of surviving Bourgeoisie Revolutions in England, in Spain (okay, there was a Socialist Revolution after that the Monarchy didn't survive, but then it came back), and that isn't mentioning the Monarchies that simply naturally and gradually reformed. The sovereignty of the ruled, meanwhile, is no more or less legitimate than the sovereignty of anything else. In my view, moral legitimacy does not come into any question of rulership, because a government is fundamentally immoral; that is the tradeoff. Note, however, that I stated rather explicitly that democracy has a very clear place. My philosophy is that government is based around what works, not is moral.

Also, Elective Monarchy is complete crap.

[Radiant head]

i mean yeah you could say monarchies survived in places like england, but a). their power has been stripped, and b). i have a hard time seeing them as anything but outdated relics.  like technically monarchies can exist with post-feudal economic systems, but it wasn't a coincidence that divine right was in the same system as one where serfs were tied to their land.  likewise, representative democracy was specifically born out of capitalism and exists to support their interests.  that's kind of the whole point of the state, protecting the dominant class in an economic system. 

and i'm not really buying the "what works" stuff either.  a system that "works" (whatever that criteria that even is), but strips people's ability to self-govern based on archaic ideas of royalty isn't one i want anything to be a part of.  i mean i hate capitalism, but i have no illusion that the current electoral system "works" to meet the needs of capital.  

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Radiant head said:

i mean yeah you could say monarchies survived in places like england, but a). their power has been stripped, and b). i have a hard time seeing them as anything but outdated relics.  like technically monarchies can exist with post-feudal economic systems, but it wasn't a coincidence that divine right was in the same system as one where serfs were tied to their land.  likewise, representative democracy was specifically born out of capitalism and exists to support their interests.  that's kind of the whole point of the state, protecting the dominant class in an economic system. 

and i'm not really buying the "what works" stuff either.  a system that "works" (whatever that criteria that even is), but strips people's ability to self-govern based on archaic ideas of royalty isn't one i want anything to be a part of.  i mean i hate capitalism, but i have no illusion that the current electoral system "works" to meet the needs of capital.  

So, okay, I have outlined what purpose a monarch can serve in a modern society. Care to rebut that?

Divine Right was devised by monarchs as a means of moving away from the Feudal System. Monarchs under Feudalism got their legitimacy from their ability to provide protection to their noble's, who would in turn provide protection for the Serfs. Divine Right was conceived by Louis XIV as an alternative means of legitimacy to justify stripping the nobility of more and more power. Now, I'm not advocating for divine right as a system of legitimacy, but it was a system of legitimacy tied with moving away from Feudalism, not with perpetuating it. I'll also point you towards the Enlightened Absolutism movement, which (when it was actually implemented) entailed moving entirely away from Feudalism. To do that, though, you have to have a Monarch with the legal ability to end Feudalism, which, before divine right, did not exist. 

And yes, I suppose the state does theoretically protect the interests of the ruling class, but I'll take a more idealistic view of it and say that the state protects people as a whole (when functioning properly) and the ruling class most of all as a byproduct of them having the most stuff. Serious question: do you genuinely think it will be good for poor people if the state were to no longer exist?

There's that word again, archaic. Never mind that legally enshrined democracy actually came into being at a similar time to legally enshrined hereditary monarchy (and both before the birth of Christ), but I feel that if we're going to have a logical fallacy for saying something is good because it's old, we should have one for saying something is bad because it's old. Also, tell me where I supported taking away the people's right to self govern. 

[Moblin Major General]

32 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

So, okay, I have outlined what purpose a monarch can serve in a modern society. Care to rebut that?

Divine Right was devised by monarchs as a means of moving away from the Feudal System. Monarchs under Feudalism got their legitimacy from their ability to provide protection to their noble's, who would in turn provide protection for the Serfs. Divine Right was conceived by Louis XIV as an alternative means of legitimacy to justify stripping the nobility of more and more power. Now, I'm not advocating for divine right as a system of legitimacy, but it was a system of legitimacy tied with moving away from Feudalism, not with perpetuating it. I'll also point you towards the Enlightened Absolutism movement, which (when it was actually implemented) entailed moving entirely away from Feudalism. To do that, though, you have to have a Monarch with the legal ability to end Feudalism, which, before divine right, did not exist. 

And yes, I suppose the state does theoretically protect the interests of the ruling class, but I'll take a more idealistic view of it and say that the state protects people as a whole (when functioning properly) and the ruling class most of all as a byproduct of them having the most stuff. Serious question: do you genuinely think it will be good for poor people if the state were to no longer exist?

There's that word again, archaic. Never mind that legally enshrined democracy actually came into being at a similar time to legally enshrined hereditary monarchy (and both before the birth of Christ), but I feel that if we're going to have a logical fallacy for saying something is good because it's old, we should have one for saying something is bad because it's old. Also, tell me where I supported taking away the people's right to self govern. 

Divine Right, as in "I am conceited enough to proclaim aloud a deity bestows upon me the power to rule." Anyone who has to claim that something other than the people who choose their leaders is deluding themselves. Is it effective? Hell yes, if Iran is anything to go by. But by no means should it be what a leader defaults to. God is not a weapon to be wielded, lest he be wielded against you.

Define similar time. Are you forgetting the Pharaohs literally were gods? And how long before Athens they existed? Also, even Divine Right monarchies are far from the ethical or moral standard that humanity as a whole should aspire to.

[Radiant head]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

So, okay, I have outlined what purpose a monarch can serve in a modern society. Care to rebut that?

Divine Right was devised by monarchs as a means of moving away from the Feudal System. Monarchs under Feudalism got their legitimacy from their ability to provide protection to their noble's, who would in turn provide protection for the Serfs. Divine Right was conceived by Louis XIV as an alternative means of legitimacy to justify stripping the nobility of more and more power. Now, I'm not advocating for divine right as a system of legitimacy, but it was a system of legitimacy tied with moving away from Feudalism, not with perpetuating it. I'll also point you towards the Enlightened Absolutism movement, which (when it was actually implemented) entailed moving entirely away from Feudalism. To do that, though, you have to have a Monarch with the legal ability to end Feudalism, which, before divine right, did not exist. 

And yes, I suppose the state does theoretically protect the interests of the ruling class, but I'll take a more idealistic view of it and say that the state protects people as a whole (when functioning properly) and the ruling class most of all as a byproduct of them having the most stuff. Serious question: do you genuinely think it will be good for poor people if the state were to no longer exist?

There's that word again, archaic. Never mind that legally enshrined democracy actually came into being at a similar time to legally enshrined hereditary monarchy (and both before the birth of Christ), but I feel that if we're going to have a logical fallacy for saying something is good because it's old, we should have one for saying something is bad because it's old. Also, tell me where I supported taking away the people's right to self govern. 

there's no such thing as the state no longer existing while poor people still exist.  as long as there are poor people, there has to be an upper, dominant class and how that classes maintains and enforces this hierarchy is the state. 

and I don't think "old" is inherently bad or whatever, but political and economic systems necessarily evolve to meet the needs of society for a given period of time, and the emergence of liberalism and representative democracy are no exception.  so I don't think giving power on the basis of bloodline meets any need for modern society. it's dishonest to say "democracy is old too" when "democracy" in the abstract doesn't mean anything when ancient "democracy" was a system propping slave owners.

the idea that power should be based on families is pretty going against people having the right to decide who has that power. having a constitution or bodies that are elected in addition is fine, but it doesn't explain why we need the monarchy in the first place besides the tired cliche that "the problem is we need less democracy not more" 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Radiant head

[blah the Prussian]

34 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Divine Right, as in "I am conceited enough to proclaim aloud a deity bestows upon me the power to rule." Anyone who has to claim that something other than the people who choose their leaders is deluding themselves. Is it effective? Hell yes, if Iran is anything to go by. But by no means should it be what a leader defaults to. God is not a weapon to be wielded, lest he be wielded against you.

Define similar time. Are you forgetting the Pharaohs literally were gods? And how long before Athens they existed? Also, even Divine Right monarchies are far from the ethical or moral standard that humanity as a whole should aspire to.

I'm not defending divine right. I also don't think Louis XIV actually believed that God appointed him to govern. It was necessary as propaganda, giving legal basis for the King to strip the nobles of their power, and its adoption across Europe laid the groundwork for Enlightened Absolutism and the final end of Feudalism. This didnt happen in France because Louis XV was a moron, but it happened everywhere else. It was an important step with the bottom line being the centralization of power, and a step in the direction of the modern nation state. Also, fuck, brainfarted with the Pharaohs.

27 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

there's no such thing as the state no longer existing while poor people still exist.  as long as there are poor people, there has to be an upper, dominant class and how that classes maintains and enforces this hierarchy is the state. 

and I don't think "old" is inherently bad or whatever, but political and economic systems necessarily evolve to meet the needs of society for a given period of time, and the emergence of liberalism and representative democracy are no exception.  so I don't think giving power on the basis of bloodline meets any need for modern society. it's dishonest to say "democracy is old too" when "democracy" in the abstract doesn't mean anything when ancient "democracy" was a system propping slave owners.

the idea that power should be based on families is pretty going against people having the right to decide who has that power. having a constitution or bodies that are elected in addition is fine, but it doesn't explain why we need the monarchy in the first place besides the tired cliche that "the problem is we need less democracy not more" 

So do you claim, then, that people were not poor in the pre-civilization period, i.e. the Paleolithic? I mean, I suppose if everyone has a little, then you're rich if you have anything, but I would rather live in a (theoretical, no nation has this really) country where the rich have trillions of dollars, so long as the poor are cared for and no one is impoverished.

And Ancient Monarchy as a concept was extremely divorced from modern monarchy. The idea evolved, as all do. Constitutional Monarchy and Modern Republicanism have less than a century separating them, if those are what we'll be comparing.

It's not that power should be based on families, but more that one branch of government shouldn't be tied to elections. I believe that a Monarchy is the best way of getting that, but I'm open to suggestions. As I stated before, it is impossible to achieve Separation of Powers when the same electorate elects two branches, and the third is under the control of one of the elected branches. So there's my justification. So, care to refute that, using reasoning beyond the circular argument that we need more democracy because the people should have the power?

[Radiant head]

I mean yeah the current system is flawed, but how you make the logical leap from that to "we need less democracy and power structures unaccountable to and undecided by people" still doesn't make any sense to me.  would rather have socialism and direct democratic structures like worker councils and municipal assemblies than a fucking monarchy but that's just me. 

and lol I'm not going to sit here and regurgitate all the 18th century philosophy that's been written about justifying popular sovereignty.  but I if our priorities are that different then that's that I guess.