2 ms·

The judicial arm can only act within the law. The law can be changed. Hitler assumed the chancellory legally. Perhaps a German king could have overruled the ann

The judicial arm can only act within the law. The law can be changed. Hitler assumed the chancellory legally. Perhaps a German king could have overruled the annexation of Austria and/or the Sudetenland? (of course, it's pure speculation, and the Kaiser of WW1 wasn't exactly a bulwark against aggression). Yes, there are characters significantly more scary than Balkenende, and I think the Queen is a much better cooling agent for such a person than the judicial arm can be.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago
It can also work the other way around though. A dictator could keep some royalty around in order to grant legitimacy to his regime. Spain is an interesting case in point. They had both, a king as a stooge of Franco and then another king saving the young democracy. I think the idea of some people being more equal than others is terrible. This idea has kept the world in a state of constant exploitation and imperialist war for thousands of years. I don't want to see it continue in any shape or form, even if it may have benefits in some situations. The Saudi example is a particularly nasty one by the way, but I don't think you intended to defend an absolute monarchy.
- mseebach 16y ago
  It's not a silver bullet, and obviously monarchy doesn't make society impervious to totalitarianism, as Francos Spain and the Saudis are examples of. I don't give much for the egalitarian argument. Yes, I'm better than a lot of other people, and I have no problem accepting that there are other people who are better than me. Now, this doesn't imply that I should be in a ruling position over them, nor them over me. The royal family isn't in power because they're "better", or because they just happen to be part of a class that happens to be in power. They're in power because they're the royal family, and the throne is passed down through predefined rules that they don't control. If you're not heir to the throne, you won't get it (this is why they're not a "class"). They exist as a check of democracy where the process of getting elected has more in common with a reality-TV-show than a thorough assessment of skills and ideas. Members of the royal family are born with a single, simple mission, should they choose to accept it: to secure the longevity of their nation. If they don't accept, there exists the option of abdication, which is irreversible. They train for this single mission for decades. At no point in their lives are they subject to petty political quibbles, and this is how they keep their legitimacy.
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    You have a very odd view of history. Thrones have not been passed down based on any predefined rules. Who could have predefined them anyway?. Thrones were faught over in wars, endless scheming, forced and tactical marriage, etc. Europe was devastated again and again for no better reason than some wacko royal trying to expand his power or go to heaven by slaughtering other peoples. And no, they do not exist to keep democracy in check. They existed long before democracy and had to be removed from absolute power by force in most cases and by threatening force in others. If anything, democracy was introduced to keep the royals in check. These clans together with their clerical stooges and armed thugs have wasted the world's resources for their own eccentric, self serving and unproductive endeavors for thousands of years. And those constitutional monarchs, which are admittedly rather harmless, are not a counter weight to failures of TV-show democracy either. Quite the contrary. They are themselves the material for endless media gossip. Managing their own reputation is what they do all their lives. Keeping the monarchy going, that's all they do and that's all they have ever done. Ah, yes, and sometimes they write strange letters to ministers about organic farming, alternative medicine or their private history Disney style architectural preferences.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

It can also work the other way around though. A dictator could keep some royalty around in order to grant legitimacy to his regime. Spain is an interesting case in point. They had both, a king as a stooge of Franco and then another king saving the young democracy. I think the idea of some people being more equal than others is terrible. This idea has kept the world in a state of constant exploitation and imperialist war for thousands of years. I don't want to see it continue in any shape or form, even if it may have benefits in some situations. The Saudi example is a particularly nasty one by the way, but I don't think you intended to defend an absolute monarchy.

mseebach 16y ago
It's not a silver bullet, and obviously monarchy doesn't make society impervious to totalitarianism, as Francos Spain and the Saudis are examples of. I don't give much for the egalitarian argument. Yes, I'm better than a lot of other people, and I have no problem accepting that there are other people who are better than me. Now, this doesn't imply that I should be in a ruling position over them, nor them over me. The royal family isn't in power because they're "better", or because they just happen to be part of a class that happens to be in power. They're in power because they're the royal family, and the throne is passed down through predefined rules that they don't control. If you're not heir to the throne, you won't get it (this is why they're not a "class"). They exist as a check of democracy where the process of getting elected has more in common with a reality-TV-show than a thorough assessment of skills and ideas. Members of the royal family are born with a single, simple mission, should they choose to accept it: to secure the longevity of their nation. If they don't accept, there exists the option of abdication, which is irreversible. They train for this single mission for decades. At no point in their lives are they subject to petty political quibbles, and this is how they keep their legitimacy.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  You have a very odd view of history. Thrones have not been passed down based on any predefined rules. Who could have predefined them anyway?. Thrones were faught over in wars, endless scheming, forced and tactical marriage, etc. Europe was devastated again and again for no better reason than some wacko royal trying to expand his power or go to heaven by slaughtering other peoples. And no, they do not exist to keep democracy in check. They existed long before democracy and had to be removed from absolute power by force in most cases and by threatening force in others. If anything, democracy was introduced to keep the royals in check. These clans together with their clerical stooges and armed thugs have wasted the world's resources for their own eccentric, self serving and unproductive endeavors for thousands of years. And those constitutional monarchs, which are admittedly rather harmless, are not a counter weight to failures of TV-show democracy either. Quite the contrary. They are themselves the material for endless media gossip. Managing their own reputation is what they do all their lives. Keeping the monarchy going, that's all they do and that's all they have ever done. Ah, yes, and sometimes they write strange letters to ministers about organic farming, alternative medicine or their private history Disney style architectural preferences.