Secular Koranism
Isn’t it obvious that monarchy is an anachronism as well as a significantly smaller pool of political talent from which to recruit your next national leader?
Isn’t it in the national interest not to have an anachronistic political system?
The consequences of having an anachronistic political system is the opportunity cost of being a republic rightly guided by the principles of the Koran.
Christianity has repeatedly failed to support the divine right of monarchs to rule and for this reason alone should be abandoned.
Mark Griffith
No, it's not obvious.
In fact, the opposite is obvious. Republics are archaic and anachronistic.
Like flared trousers, they come back into fashion regularly throughout history, but rarely (Venice excepted) last more than a couple of centuries.
Secular Koranism
How are republics anachronistic?
Mark Griffith
Because they belong to the past of Greece and Rome.
They reappear in a blaze of modern fashion (modern in 18th-century terms) yet at the same time reeking of nostalgia - Washington DC and chunks of Paris are timeless dreams of Graeco-Roman antiquity.
The most famous and modern republic of the _17th_ century, meanwhile, the Netherlands, has happily gone back to monarchy.
[In reply to Mark Griffith]
Netherlands is a very small constitutional monarchy.
[In reply to Secular Koranism]
Doesn't matter. Around 1600 it was the most developed, futuristic, up-to-date country in Europe.
And it being a republic was a huge part of that aura of modernity.
[In reply to Mark Griffith]
A country is either a republic or a monarchy.
[In reply to Secular Koranism]
That's my point. Holland changed.
It was a republic, a super-trendy one everyone progressive wanted to copy.
Now it's a monarchy.
My point is that republics are transient.
Secular Koranism
My point is that you are either a republic or a monarchy.
Carol of California
Do you all really want a ruling class over you?
None of sound like you do
Secular Koranism
There will always be a ruling class whether you’re a monarchy or republic.
Carol of California
I’m asking them if they really want that for themselves. Sure there is always a ruling class but I’m asking what they want.
Secular Koranism in reply to Carol of California
There is a ruling class even in communist republics. It is unavoidable, isn’t it?
Mark Griffith
But that's irrelevant to my claim republics are anachronistic.
How does your either/or point affect what I said?
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I don’t really see how republics are anachronistic seeing as the most powerful empires of both the Occident and Orient have given up on their monarchies. Wasn’t Rome a monarchy for most of its history?
What would you say is the purpose of a monarch?
Carol of California in reply to Secular Koranism
Sigh. I think people want a ruling class if they think they can be part if that class.
Secular Koranism in reply to Carol of California
I am saying that the pool of political talent you recruit your national leader from is significantly bigger in a republic with a ruling class recruited on a meritocratic basis.
Carol of California in reply to Secular Koranism
Sure.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
Why did the Dutch return to monarchy after being a republic?
Secular Koranism in reply to Secular Koranism
Because republics don't last.
They tend to collapse after two or three centuries - as I said with the exception of Venice.
They're fragile.
Richard Madden in reply to Mark Griffith
Monarchies collapse too though. The world's full of republics because the former royals were ousted in revolutions. Greece, Russia, China, Germany to give four examples.
Mark Griffith in reply to Richard Madden
Of course, all types of governments fall.
But the world is only full of republics currently because they're in fashion and the British empire and the US set up republics across Africa and Asia.
This is all part of the European trend of "Enlightenment" and Romanticism. Byron actually died in the Greek war to leave the Ottoman monarchy.
Germany and Russia and China all became republics because of defeat by European powers at the height of post-18th-century Europe's perceived modernity and enthusiasm for setting up republics.
Meanwhile, every time a republic's president's son (Bush, Kim Il Jong, Assad) or a republic's president's wife (India, Argentina, attempted by Hillary Clinton, lots of other examples) becomes the leader of a supposed republic, you see the inexorable force of history, like a kind of homeostasis, returning to the default notion of hereditary rule.
Secular Koranism
All empires, nations, republics and monarchies are fragile. We know from the Bible that Jews have not been blessed by their monarchs. Christianity has failed many times to protect the divine right of kings. We know from Islam that a Caliph is not a king and that the logic of Islam entails a republic.
Every absolute monarch is a dictator, but not every dictator is a king. To be an absolute monarch is the pinnacle of achievement for every megalomaniac.
North Korea is really a republic that is a monarchy in disguise.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
No, not to the same extent. Not all states are equally fragile at a given moment - this is incorrect.
We're talking about the delusion here that republicanism _as a system_ is inherently better and more stable than monarchy. This is an understandable belief at our present moment, in a world transformed by the fashions of the last 300 years, but still just a belief.
Of course snapshots from history (1800, 1400, 800, whenever) show strong monarchies alongside weak monarchies alongside a smaller number of republics at some point in their brief flowering. Elected monarchies (Polish, Saxon) are particularly short-lived as a species, as a type of state, or else long-lived but weak like the Holy Roman Empire.
In a book-length discussion of this topic I would argue that the unique longevity of the Venetian Republic (14, 15 centuries) was due to it integrating many of the features of a monarchy inside the outer shell of a republic.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I never said all states are equally fragile at any given moment. Obviously, a wise and benign absolute monarchy would be better than a corrupt republic. We are really talking about the orderly transfer of power and this means the rule of law. The rule of law is really divine law generally believed in.
Carol of California in reply to Secular Koranism
Except for 12 er Shia, but they would be kind of republic waiting for the return of the hidden Imam and Ismailis who have visible present Imams
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
No, this is also false. Most monarchs are not dictators. That's why you slipped the word "absolute" in there! 🙂
And dictators or tyrants are generally created by republics. Aristotle explains that most tyrants are elected into power in democratic city states on a revolutionary promise ("Free the people!") whereupon they then take full power for themselves.
Monarchies are more often an obstacle to dictatorship (certainly in Europe) where kings are confined by tradition and the struggle to keep the family in power through future generations, whereas the excitement of a republican revolution is frequently the moment when a dictatorship is imposed, or a royal dictatorship (like Tsarist Russia) transforms into a worse dictatorship where a smaller group of people have an even tighter grip on power.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I don’t say that even a corrupt republic would be better than a wise and benign absolute monarchy. For the orderly transfer of power, there must be the rule of law. For there to be the rule of law, most people must want to obey the law or at any rate most of the ruling classes must want to obey the rule of law. If you don’t have a functioning moral system at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality, then you won’t have the rule of law. As we have already observed, the rule of law is breaking down in the West.
Carol of California
And the military must believe in and obey the law
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
And I wasn't making that contrast.
I'm not arguing that republics are usually corrupt or that monarchies are usually benign.
Neither of those is true, and I'm not arguing either claim.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I am also making the point that there is no point to being a member of the British Royal Family if you are treated as having fewer rights than your subjects.
I am also making the point that there is no point to being a member of the British Royal Family if you are treated as having fewer rights than your subjects.
You are saying that a constitutional monarchy can be a protection against a corrupt ruling class and I am saying that the British monarchy has done nothing of the sort.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
That's a separate point you have made eloquently before.
But of course the merits or demerits of a monarchy are not measured by whether the king thinks it suits him.
Monarchy is not about there being "a point in being king".
Yes, but again you use legerdemain.
"Can be" is not disproved by "has not", firstly, and secondly during long periods Britain's system has _precisely_ succeeded in restraining excesses of the ruling class -- even if that might not be working right now.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
You are understandably sentimental about your monarchy but you don’t have to be British or white to have a residual affection for the British Royal Family. Secular Koranism would easily accommodate the British Royal Family and the Church of England. In fact, I would give them all the rights they currently don’t have: freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of belief.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
An unfair insinuation.
Nowhere is sentimentality present in my argument.
As a matter of fact I have never really liked any of the Windsors, though the queen just dead had some wit and charm sometimes.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
Please give an example of the monarchy restraining the excesses of the ruling classes.
[Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism]
Britain under Victoria. Britain under Eliz 1st or James 1st or Charles 2nd. There are plenty of examples if you read history.
Of course with James 2nd and the Georges, the ruling class restrained the excesses of the monarch. It's a symbiosis.
Secular Koranisn in reply to Mark Griffith
I hope you will explain each of your examples.
Kings and queens, princes and princesses are all hangovers from our collective childhood listening to stories of once upon a time. We still want to believe there are good kings and queens, handsome princes and beautiful princesses.
I have no dislike of any of the British Royal Family, even the misbehaving ones. I just don’t think anyone should be forced to go without the human right to privacy, freedom of belief and expression for the dubious benefit of keeping the global American empire going. We know the Australian Prime Minister would have been dismissed by the Governor General if he had refused to agree not to hold a referendum on Australia becoming a republic in his first term. Australia is instrumental in keeping intact the global American empire.
White identity where it matters is about whether white people around the world think the global American empire has been good for them.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
You're not willing to debate honestly if you make this silly accusation of sentimentality.
The French and American republics were founded by people brought up from childhood reading the Greek and Roman classics who believed in brave and handsome heroes from pre-Imperial Rome and Athens.
It's just the same. My argument nowhere depends on childhood stories of good kings - in fact I hated these traditional stories as a child and read lots of science fiction, itself (sentimental futurism) a form of childish anti-traditional stories.
You're making this claim because you cannot answer my argument that republics are inherently transient - an argument which nowhere depended on good kings and beautiful princesses.
If you need my examples to be explained in detail you haven't read enough history to raise these questions. Britain's ruling elite in the early 17th century were gung-ho to join in the Thirty Years' War - a disastrous episode - and James 1st kept Britain out of that war. Eliz 1st also wisely kept Britain out of Continental entanglements despite the elite's desire to take part.
A little thought on your part and it would be self-evident that tension between monarchs and aristocrats has repeatedly been a useful brake on foolish state action, just as republics have also frequently shown wise caution.
You have several times misrepresented my argument, raised straw-man objections, and you have repeatedly attacked claims I did not make.
I need to be persuaded you really seek honest debate.
I never said monarchies good, republics bad, and you seem unable to admit this.
Perhaps you should try to clearly state what you think I argued for on here, so we can clear away your misleading claims and irrelevant counter-points.
I simply said, with examples and clear reasoning, that republics are short-lived (meaning two or three centuries) and monarchies (good or bad) are a more stable "form of life" - if you look at constitutions as evolving lifeforms.
I think you have simply absorbed, without critical thought, the 19th and 20th century view that monarchies are "old-fashioned" and "sentimental" and republics are "modern" and "rational".
You've never encountered my view before and you're mistaking it for other views you _have_ encountered.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I have already conceded that republics need the rule of law to be maintained.
Of course monarchs being seen as important national figures could serve as a restraint to any misguided policies of the ruling classes if they choose to risk their position by taking a controversial viewpoint.
QEII as far as I know just did as she was told and signed all the papers she was told to sign.
The position you take on the British monarchy would depend on whether you think the global American empire has been a force for the good for either humanity or white people. If you think it would be better broken up, then Australia should become a republic with its own independent foreign policy. May I know your position on this question?
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
All right - let me interpolate.
Each one of your paragraphs misrepresents my position.
<< I have already conceded that republics need the rule of law to be maintained. >>
So what? A point unconnected to my argument.
<< Of course monarchs being seen as important national figures could serve as a restraint to any misguided policies of the ruling classes if they choose to risk their position by taking a controversial viewpoint. >>
But again, that's not my point. Not what I'm saying.
<< QEII as far as I know just did as she was told and signed all the papers she was told to sign. >>
Yes. But again that doesn't connect with my claim.
<< The position you take on the British monarchy would depend on whether you think the global American empire has been a force for the good for either humanity or white people. >>
No my position doesn't depend on that at all.
<< If you think it would be better broken up, then Australia should become a republic with its own independent foreign policy. May I know your position on this question? >>
I have nowhere discussed this American empire question. It's irrelevant to my point about republics being a fragile lifeform.
I have no view on Australia's constitutional future, and in any case it doesn't affect my argument either way. I see now you are - probably innocently - confusing my argument with lots of other people's arguments.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I have already taken your point that a monarch can be a restraining force for the good if the monarch were prepared to risk his position on a controversial issue!
All political systems are fragile life forms which is presumably why religion is used to protect it. Even if you choose the best available religion, there is still the problem of interpreting and applying its principles correctly either because the ruling class has a vested interest in not applying it correctly or ignorance obstructs its correct application.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
But I never made that point.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
Have I contradicted whatever point you were making?
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
Not really - it's just that we're talking past each other.
I don't care if you agree though.
I simply expressed a view about republics being recurrent but fragile and short-lived in the long historical perspective, and you began answering lots of points I never made or supported, like
- the symbolic value of a constitutional monarchy (I never said this)
- my supposed sentimental attraction to fairy tales about wise kings (nothing I said supports this)
- the claim that it's "not worth being king under conditions X or Y" (which has no connection with my point)
- the claim that monarchies are archaic but republics are not (although both monarchies and republics are ancient institutions)
- the claim that monarchs have never restrained elites (your desire I give examples as if any intelligent person could doubt that monarchs have often restrained, and likewise have often needed restraining)
- the claim being a monarch is especially appealing to megalomaniacs, although many megalomaniacs have headed republics.....
And so on.
My sense is you don't know that much political history - which is absolutely fine of course - but that's going to hamper your secular-Koranism project, which is very much embedded in political history, law, and some related topics.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
I know enough about political history to be aware of the following:
1) Major nations of the world have given up on their monarchies ie China, Russia, Iran and the British colonial outpost that was America.
2) It cannot be denied that a republic has a significantly bigger pool of political talent than a monarchy. Compare China's one-party state with the chinless wonders of the Windsor Family.
3) A constitutional monarch would only be good for restraining the excesses of the ruling classes if she or he were disposed to risk his position and QEII did nothing of the sort.
Therefore, in my view, the institution of British monarchy is not worth preserving in view of the fact that it is only doing exactly what Uncle Sam commands with the result that being a member of the British Royal Family only means you have fewer human rights than even your subjects.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
Exactly. This list shows you don't know much.
1) Very recently, and during defeat in war.
2) It can easily be denied since it's untrue. An untalented president, prime minister, dictator, or monarch can draw - and often has drawn - on the talent of a pool of advisers, so (2) is trivially false.
3) Irrelevant again - I said nothing about constitutional monarchs.
You've just shown you know very little history, your thinking is dominated by the last hundred years, and (worse) you _believe_ you understand these topics quite well.
Never mind! I thought there was a bit more substance to your interestingly eccentric project, but I see now I was wrong! Now it's clear why you don't want to write a book.
Secular Koranism in reply to Mark Griffith
1) So you acknowledge that major nations have given up their monarchies. Could it be that you envisage the restoration of the monarchy in China, Iran and Russia as well as an American king?
2) If you can choose your national leader from commoners, then this group is a significantly larger group than any existing royal family.
3) I was referring to constitutional monarchs because no absolute monarchs now exist to be considered.
Feel free to fill the gaps of my knowledge about how monarchs rode to the rescue of failing republics which you say history is so full of.
If I wrote a book, it wouldn't be a history book since I was not trained as a historian. If I wrote a book, it would be to say why I think Secular Koranism must be the solution to the political problems of the West. It would actually accommodate a constitutional monarchy and I would be leaving the subject well alone since the subject is speculative, unnecessarily controversial and is one of those "let's cross the bridge when we get to it" kind of issue.
Mark Griffith in reply to Secular Koranism
No I don't acknowledge that. Do you have trouble reading?
1) They got their monarchies taken away by seditious groups during wars. They didn't "give them up". Do you acknowledge that you debate dishonestly? Do you seriously claim the Bolshevik or Maoist or Jacobin revolutions were voluntary democratic relinquishments? The American colonists offered Washington a crown.
2) You simply ignore what I wrote, which already answered your point.
3) Again likewise you show you are rooted in the very recent past. My point was explicitly long-term on the scale of thousands of years.
How can I possibly fill in such huge gaps in the knowledge of someone who doesn't read books and refuses to listen in good faith to what I say?
<<
Feel free to fill the gaps of my knowledge about how monarchs rode to the rescue of failing republics which you say history is so full of.
>>
What kind of sneering misrepresentation is this? I never said anything of the kind. Learn some manners, please.
Secular Koranismn in reply to Mark Griffith
I wonder if anyone else knows why Mark is on about and why he is so angry with me.
I never claimed monarchs willingly gave up their monarchies in peace so there is no need to contradict me on that.
I have cited innumerable times how Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas were victims of regicide so I don't think it is quite fair of you to accuse me of not knowing this.
What "sneering misrepresentation" are you accusing me of being guilty of?
Didn't you say monarchs could act as a restraining force on the excesses of a ruling class? As examples, you mentioned that Elizabeth and James kept their countries out of the Wars of the Reformation on the continent but then the UK already had its hands full dealing with the English Reformation.
I am still offering to agree with you with whatever you said that is not historically untrue but you seem determined to take offence at everything I have said even when I have not contradicted you. It seems you are objecting to my tone now! I am wondering if anyone else is following our exchanges and what comment they have to offer about your tone of peevish injury.
No comments:
Post a Comment