5 ms·

Many kings were strong and admirable. Not sure why you are so down on individual kings even if monarchy is not a great system of governance and prone to tyranny

by anon291 11mo ago

Many kings were strong and admirable. Not sure why you are so down on individual kings even if monarchy is not a great system of governance and prone to tyranny. Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. Ascribing only vices (chopping heads off) to monarchs is wrong. To be clear, I am a staunch republican and believe king Charles and other European monarchs need to step down. However you are engaging in revisionism

watwut 11mo ago
> Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. Are you having some concrete historical personalities in mind or are you actually just making up imaginary kings who simultaneously created a common legal framework, fought against invaders while not invading others, eased commers and also enhanced "human flourishing"? And did all that while other people in kingdom and surrounding kingdoms were basically unimportant to all that and the king was the center person to all of that? Cause I am going to argue that whatever benefits and disadvantages of monarchy, your king is imaginary. Despite being powerful, kings were very much limited by what went on around them and what they could not control.
- anon291 11mo ago
  There is no country which matches your requirements for good king. This is not a serious question. Yes there have been many just kings throughout history.
Atlas667 11mo ago
You know, I am not a historian. And I'm not gonna talk as if I know anything about how kings were viewed by the people. But in my mind kings can be "good" in the same way slave owners can be "good". Not that much, if any at all, contextually.
- samdoesnothing 11mo ago
  Why not compare them to their modern equivalents? They seem mostly the same as politicians today, except some actually cared about the people the ruled.
  - Atlas667 11mo ago
    Nah, I think the rich are the kings, politicians are their court. We have a bunch of little kings with a public court that theyre all trying to use for themselves. IDK you but I think you cant get rich by being a good person. You actively have to ignore others' needs to focus on growth, to use people.
cyberax 11mo ago
The only "good kings" are: 1. The ones that are long dead. 2. The ones that have their head chopped off. 3. The ones that don't actually have a lot of power. > Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. "Good kings" did not "provide protection". The army did. They also did not provide "protection" to everybody, regular peasants usually couldn't care less about their current king.
- card_zero 11mo ago
  Many of the long dead ones did good things. In a manner of speaking there shouldn't have been kings in the past, but we can extend that statement to say that the past should have been modern times, which it couldn't be. Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Charlemagne, then, who (at least in his capacity as a cultural focal point) standardized Latin and founded schools and reformed the illegible script into miniscule, was reasonably good, for a king. The Persian, Roman, and Indian emperors, who started postal services, were doing it for espionage and warfare, but as it happens, they were also doing some good.
  - cyberax 11mo ago
    > which it couldn't be. And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense? If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and influence but accidentally ended up being a positive influence. Regarding Charlemagne, right in the Wikipedia: > Charlemagne's reign was one of near-constant warfare, participating in annual campaigns, many led personally. > Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Then why do we worry about slavery, colonialism, racism, and so on?
    - card_zero 11mo ago

by anon291 11mo ago

watwut 11mo ago

> Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. Are you having some concrete historical personalities in mind or are you actually just making up imaginary kings who simultaneously created a common legal framework, fought against invaders while not invading others, eased commers and also enhanced "human flourishing"? And did all that while other people in kingdom and surrounding kingdoms were basically unimportant to all that and the king was the center person to all of that? Cause I am going to argue that whatever benefits and disadvantages of monarchy, your king is imaginary. Despite being powerful, kings were very much limited by what went on around them and what they could not control.

anon291 11mo ago
There is no country which matches your requirements for good king. This is not a serious question. Yes there have been many just kings throughout history.

Atlas667 11mo ago

You know, I am not a historian. And I'm not gonna talk as if I know anything about how kings were viewed by the people. But in my mind kings can be "good" in the same way slave owners can be "good". Not that much, if any at all, contextually.

samdoesnothing 11mo ago
Why not compare them to their modern equivalents? They seem mostly the same as politicians today, except some actually cared about the people the ruled.
- Atlas667 11mo ago
  Nah, I think the rich are the kings, politicians are their court. We have a bunch of little kings with a public court that theyre all trying to use for themselves. IDK you but I think you cant get rich by being a good person. You actively have to ignore others' needs to focus on growth, to use people.

cyberax 11mo ago

The only "good kings" are: 1. The ones that are long dead. 2. The ones that have their head chopped off. 3. The ones that don't actually have a lot of power. > Good kings provided protection from the very real threat of foreign barbarians, provided a common legal framework, and eased commerce, and thus human flourishing. Good kings deserve commendation even if monarchy has issues. "Good kings" did not "provide protection". The army did. They also did not provide "protection" to everybody, regular peasants usually couldn't care less about their current king.

card_zero 11mo ago
Many of the long dead ones did good things. In a manner of speaking there shouldn't have been kings in the past, but we can extend that statement to say that the past should have been modern times, which it couldn't be. Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Charlemagne, then, who (at least in his capacity as a cultural focal point) standardized Latin and founded schools and reformed the illegible script into miniscule, was reasonably good, for a king. The Persian, Roman, and Indian emperors, who started postal services, were doing it for espionage and warfare, but as it happens, they were also doing some good.
- cyberax 11mo ago
  > which it couldn't be. And why? Perhaps a good king could have worked at creating institutions rather than "uniting Europe" or other such nonsense? If you study history, then you'll notice how preciously few people were focused on making the lives of regular people better. With kings and other nobles, the "good things" also tend to be historical accidents. Something that was typically done to gain more power and influence but accidentally ended up being a positive influence. Regarding Charlemagne, right in the Wikipedia: > Charlemagne's reign was one of near-constant warfare, participating in annual campaigns, many led personally. > Any moral judgment has to take into account what can reasonably be expected. Then why do we worry about slavery, colonialism, racism, and so on?
  - card_zero 11mo ago