7 ms·

Or to a slave in a Republic (whether that's the Confederacy, Rome or Athens).

by Ichthypresbyter 2y ago

crowselect 2y ago
What does that have to do with monarchy?
- Ichthypresbyter 2y ago
  The same thing that serfdom has to do with monarchy. In other words, nothing.
  - crowselect 2y ago
    Monarchy does not prevent enslavement. In fact, serfdom is a relatively common feature of monarchy. That’s what those two things have to do with each other.
    - quink 2y ago
      There’s no serfdom anywhere in the world currently. There are plenty of monarchies in the world. Meanwhile, currently, slavery is far more common in non-monarchies than monarchies. Your “relatively common” is literally zero in the current reality, unless there’s countries you’re aware of that the rest of us aren’t.
      - crowselect 2y ago
        Relatively common in history.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        It's almost as though the global political landscape has varied significantly over these thousands of years and various societal features (including monarchy, serfdom, slavery, etc) aren't inherently linked to one another. My original point was that a monarchy permits both the best and worst possible outcomes because a single individual has maximal power to enact a unified vision. The observation could obviously apply in degrees to any dictatorship though, regardless of the official classification.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Yeah, that’s the ol’ philosopher-king argument. I get it, but I don’t really buy into it. I.e. if the next monarch is a despot, their rule is a part of the previous monarch’s actions… so even a truly good king will inevitably harm the people under them.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        You don't actually seem like you're disagreeing with me though? I spoke only to the form of government as it pertains to end results, not to how we should attribute "points" to a given ruler or politician. Credit assignment is similarly difficult when it comes to voters and elected leaders. The end result is higher variance over a long period of time as a dictatorship switches between good and bad leadership. Meanwhile democracies consistently fail to execute on large scale visions. There's a reason corporate structure generally resembles a dictatorship, and that same reason is what eventually leads many of them to fail.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > There’s no serfdom anywhere in the world currently. Tell that to guest workers in Saudi Arabia. Or to people in North Korea. > There are plenty of monarchies in the world. There are very few _real_ monarchies where the monarch has absolute power, with hereditary power transfer: Saudi Arabia, Oman, North Korea.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        Perhaps absolute would be a better wording. After all there are also very few absolute democracies, absolute free markets, etc, etc. Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned it just isn't prevented in practice either. At which point I wonder about other localized abusive working and living conditions in many supposedly more developed and civilized countries. > with hereditary power transfer Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy? It seems to me that the defining characteristic is a single authority figure. Hereditary power transfer is just a natural consequence of basic self interest under those circumstances.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > Perhaps absolute would be a better wording. It's a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy > Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned Of course it is. The laws (as they are) are set to allow that. > Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy? Yes. It's _the_ main characteristic of monarchy. Without it, you have run-of-the-mill autocracy (e.g. Putin in Russia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq). Hereditary power transfer means that the monarchy is an institution, with its own support structures (feudals, court, etc.). The saying: "The king is dead, long live the king!" is not hypocrisy. It's a sign that the monarchy is an institution and can survive an individual monarch's death. For example, if Putin dies tomorrow, who is going to gain the power? We don't know. There's going to be a power struggle with unpredictable results. There is no line of succession for the true power.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The UK, under a monarch, abolished slavery and set the Royal Navy to blockade slave ships. Meanwhile, the USofA pre civil war under a President with no offical monarch (other than the Little King for a term arrangement) had extensive slave plantations.
      - crowselect 2y ago
        The UK abolished slavery by an act of parliament. A parliamentary monarchy is a historical quirk that does not need the monarchy to function.
        defrost 2y ago
        Good that you agree slavery was abolished by a country with a monarch ... you skipped over the second point; the country most associated with industrial scale slavery in the world had no monarch. It's a loose correlation you're making here, very much a "let's build this skyscraper with wet noodles instead of steel" approach.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Slavery was “abolished” in the UK while that same nation continued to traffic and profit from enslavement for quite a long time it’s “abolition”. Is your point that monarchy is good, or that slavery is associated with all forms of government?

Or to a slave in a Republic (whether that's the Confederacy, Rome or Athens).

crowselect 2y ago

What does that have to do with monarchy?

Ichthypresbyter 2y ago
The same thing that serfdom has to do with monarchy. In other words, nothing.
- crowselect 2y ago
  Monarchy does not prevent enslavement. In fact, serfdom is a relatively common feature of monarchy. That’s what those two things have to do with each other.
  - quink 2y ago
    There’s no serfdom anywhere in the world currently. There are plenty of monarchies in the world. Meanwhile, currently, slavery is far more common in non-monarchies than monarchies. Your “relatively common” is literally zero in the current reality, unless there’s countries you’re aware of that the rest of us aren’t.
    - crowselect 2y ago
      Relatively common in history.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        It's almost as though the global political landscape has varied significantly over these thousands of years and various societal features (including monarchy, serfdom, slavery, etc) aren't inherently linked to one another. My original point was that a monarchy permits both the best and worst possible outcomes because a single individual has maximal power to enact a unified vision. The observation could obviously apply in degrees to any dictatorship though, regardless of the official classification.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Yeah, that’s the ol’ philosopher-king argument. I get it, but I don’t really buy into it. I.e. if the next monarch is a despot, their rule is a part of the previous monarch’s actions… so even a truly good king will inevitably harm the people under them.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        You don't actually seem like you're disagreeing with me though? I spoke only to the form of government as it pertains to end results, not to how we should attribute "points" to a given ruler or politician. Credit assignment is similarly difficult when it comes to voters and elected leaders. The end result is higher variance over a long period of time as a dictatorship switches between good and bad leadership. Meanwhile democracies consistently fail to execute on large scale visions. There's a reason corporate structure generally resembles a dictatorship, and that same reason is what eventually leads many of them to fail.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > There’s no serfdom anywhere in the world currently. Tell that to guest workers in Saudi Arabia. Or to people in North Korea. > There are plenty of monarchies in the world. There are very few _real_ monarchies where the monarch has absolute power, with hereditary power transfer: Saudi Arabia, Oman, North Korea.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        Perhaps absolute would be a better wording. After all there are also very few absolute democracies, absolute free markets, etc, etc. Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned it just isn't prevented in practice either. At which point I wonder about other localized abusive working and living conditions in many supposedly more developed and civilized countries. > with hereditary power transfer Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy? It seems to me that the defining characteristic is a single authority figure. Hereditary power transfer is just a natural consequence of basic self interest under those circumstances.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > Perhaps absolute would be a better wording. It's a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy > Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned Of course it is. The laws (as they are) are set to allow that. > Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy? Yes. It's _the_ main characteristic of monarchy. Without it, you have run-of-the-mill autocracy (e.g. Putin in Russia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq). Hereditary power transfer means that the monarchy is an institution, with its own support structures (feudals, court, etc.). The saying: "The king is dead, long live the king!" is not hypocrisy. It's a sign that the monarchy is an institution and can survive an individual monarch's death. For example, if Putin dies tomorrow, who is going to gain the power? We don't know. There's going to be a power struggle with unpredictable results. There is no line of succession for the true power.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The UK, under a monarch, abolished slavery and set the Royal Navy to blockade slave ships. Meanwhile, the USofA pre civil war under a President with no offical monarch (other than the Little King for a term arrangement) had extensive slave plantations.
    - crowselect 2y ago
      The UK abolished slavery by an act of parliament. A parliamentary monarchy is a historical quirk that does not need the monarchy to function.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Good that you agree slavery was abolished by a country with a monarch ... you skipped over the second point; the country most associated with industrial scale slavery in the world had no monarch. It's a loose correlation you're making here, very much a "let's build this skyscraper with wet noodles instead of steel" approach.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Slavery was “abolished” in the UK while that same nation continued to traffic and profit from enslavement for quite a long time it’s “abolition”. Is your point that monarchy is good, or that slavery is associated with all forms of government?