Post by TsarNicholasII on Apr 18, 2015 3:24:41 GMT
Debate Topic: Is monarchy a good, moral, efficient, and/or positive force for a nation-state? On the international level? Is it still a relevant government structure in the postmodern world?
Nicholas II - pro
KimJong-Il - opposition
<Nicholas_II>: Okay, I shall make my opening points now
<KimJong-Il>: k
<Nicholas_II>: I believe that monarchy is a positive force and structure for most any country and is still relevant to this day. *Point One* Monarchies furthered the progress of civil rights. Monarchs who were "enlightened", via the Great Enlightenment, by philosophers such as John Locke, etc. implemented liberal reform for their subjects. ...
<Nicholas_II>: Examples include: Catherine the Great of Russia, Alexander II of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, Joseph II of Austria, and more. ...
<Nicholas_II>: a specific point
<Nicholas_II>: Alexander II of Russia, abolished slavery before Abraham Lincoln did for the United States - a "free" republic. Which at that time, Russia was a completely autocratic state
<Nicholas_II>: Nicholas II implemented the duma, the Russian parliament
<Nicholas_II>: giving the right to vote to his subjects, thus liberalizing Russia, but still keeping monarchical power
<Nicholas_II>: Thus, autocratic and/or monarchical states can free their peoples and have done so in instances before a "free" republic or democracy has. And is capable of doing better by its people
<Nicholas_II>: (done)
<Nicholas_II>: take your time
<KimJong-Il>: The american slaves would've been slave free if the south weren't a thing. Republics at the time were a very new concept, and still had to get the kinks worked out. A republican government is also what made the US into the powerhouse of the 19th and 20th century it stands to be
<KimJong-Il>: You didnt list any of the bad Monarchs, like Stalin and Kim Il-Sung. As I dont deny that there was a time when Monarchy was the best option, when democracy was introduced, it became irrelevant
<KimJong-Il>: Nowadays, kings and queens are just used as celebrity figures. The Queen of England makes just about 0 choices when it comes to her country
<KimJong-Il>: Also, monarchs are almost ALWAYS passed down by heirs. There have been kings not older than 12 years old, like Akbar.
<KimJong-Il>: Would you trust an entire society to a child?
<KimJong-Il>: By electing your leaders, you can choose who you think is best. Therefore, if they aren't good, it's the voters fault. A monarchy can have tyrants, and is usually associated with incest
<KimJong-Il>: monarchy in the postmodern world is a worse option than most
<KimJong-Il>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: take your time
<Nicholas_II>: Republics were not a new concept. The Romans existed 2,000 years ago and were a republic. Athens, a direct democracy, existed even before the Romans. But the Romans became a monarchy and became (after that transition) the most prosperous empire ever (at that time).
<Nicholas_II>: In a address to democractic power making the US into a powerhouse at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th ... At the closing of the 19th century, the two most prosperous states (by growth-rate) were autocratic monarchies. The German Empire and the Austria-Hungary.
<Nicholas_II>: Monarchy was not made irrelevant by the implementation of the democratic process. As said, the Romans and Athenians were both existent and democratic states. The Romans became a monarchy and after the Romans collapsed, monarchy was the domineering strucutre for the next 1,300 years (until the 1800s).
<Nicholas_II>: Primogeniture, the idea of passing power onto one's eldest child, is an efficient system. A republic's idea is to compete for power. This divides the masses and leads to power struggle in less stable states (i.e. Cuba 1959, Castro lost the election thus usurped the winner).
<Nicholas_II>: If power were given unto, as you said, a 12 year old. In most cases the child in question will be the "symbolic" leader, not the actual leader. In the case of Russia, the monarch's court elects a Regent from among themselves to rein until the monarch comes of age.
<Nicholas_II>: <KimJong-Il>: monarchy in the postmodern world is a worse option than most
<Nicholas_II>: As of right now, one of the most prosperous countries is a monarchy. Not even just that ... but an *absolute* monarchy - Saudi Arabia.
<Nicholas_II>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: Germany grew a whole lot, that is true. Then they killed off most of their bankers and acheived hyperinflation (File:Germany_Hyperinflation.svg [View next to chat] ). The Romans often killed off their leaders (Caesar), and had some nut jobs at that too (Nero). In the case of Akbar, the 12 year ol
<KimJong-Il>: d king, his Regent was power hungry and wanted to kill of the child, so it's not nessecerilly best to have a single leader, as that can happen
<KimJong-Il>: Also, even in our government, we have 2 leaders. In a monarchy, there is one leader, and he makes all of the desicions. So you would be going against your own word by taking part of a diarch /me drops mic
<KimJong-Il>: AND
<KimJong-Il>: One problem I have with monarchy is it almost always involves religion. I'm sure Saudi Arabia, being middle easter, must have tons of Muslim people. I'm sure their policies are made with their religion in mind, like Egypt did until they were overtaken. If the US did this, we would have public stonings for adultery.
<KimJong-Il>: One last point is that when Saudi arabia is succesful with their monarchy, that's only one example. There are many, many nations that thrive with their democray. USA, Canada, NZ, etc
<KimJong-Il>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: care to make any more points, or are we done?
<Nicholas_II>: I have some
<Nicholas_II>: unless you wanna stop
<KimJong-Il>: nah, I'll let you put in your last thoughts
<Nicholas_II>: The German state which had the hyperinflation was, in fact, a republic and not a monarchy. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, abolished the German monarchy and exiled the king for life.
<Nicholas_II>: The proclaimed republic, one established by the treaty (drafted by such states as the US, UK, etc.) , the "Weimar Republic" was the one to have hyperinflation.
<KimJong-Il>: facist btw
<Nicholas_II>: not Hitler
<Nicholas_II>: Weimar was before
Nicholas_II has the talking stick
<KimJong-Il>: D:
<Nicholas_II>: I will definitely give you that point on the "diarchy", as the question specifically stated "monarch". But - in a sense - a diarchy is two monarchs.
<KimJong-Il>: (still different :X)
<Nicholas_II>: A monarchy does not inherently have to concern religion. Yes, Saudi Arabia is certainly not a secular society, as the US and UK are, but the UK has had the freedom of religion for quite some time, as well as some other examples.
<Nicholas_II>: (I suppose I am done)
We then opened up the channel for the spectators to speak.
#elysiandebateteam on IRC
Nicholas II - pro
KimJong-Il - opposition
<Nicholas_II>: Okay, I shall make my opening points now
<KimJong-Il>: k
<Nicholas_II>: I believe that monarchy is a positive force and structure for most any country and is still relevant to this day. *Point One* Monarchies furthered the progress of civil rights. Monarchs who were "enlightened", via the Great Enlightenment, by philosophers such as John Locke, etc. implemented liberal reform for their subjects. ...
<Nicholas_II>: Examples include: Catherine the Great of Russia, Alexander II of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, Joseph II of Austria, and more. ...
<Nicholas_II>: a specific point
<Nicholas_II>: Alexander II of Russia, abolished slavery before Abraham Lincoln did for the United States - a "free" republic. Which at that time, Russia was a completely autocratic state
<Nicholas_II>: Nicholas II implemented the duma, the Russian parliament
<Nicholas_II>: giving the right to vote to his subjects, thus liberalizing Russia, but still keeping monarchical power
<Nicholas_II>: Thus, autocratic and/or monarchical states can free their peoples and have done so in instances before a "free" republic or democracy has. And is capable of doing better by its people
<Nicholas_II>: (done)
<Nicholas_II>: take your time
<KimJong-Il>: The american slaves would've been slave free if the south weren't a thing. Republics at the time were a very new concept, and still had to get the kinks worked out. A republican government is also what made the US into the powerhouse of the 19th and 20th century it stands to be
<KimJong-Il>: You didnt list any of the bad Monarchs, like Stalin and Kim Il-Sung. As I dont deny that there was a time when Monarchy was the best option, when democracy was introduced, it became irrelevant
<KimJong-Il>: Nowadays, kings and queens are just used as celebrity figures. The Queen of England makes just about 0 choices when it comes to her country
<KimJong-Il>: Also, monarchs are almost ALWAYS passed down by heirs. There have been kings not older than 12 years old, like Akbar.
<KimJong-Il>: Would you trust an entire society to a child?
<KimJong-Il>: By electing your leaders, you can choose who you think is best. Therefore, if they aren't good, it's the voters fault. A monarchy can have tyrants, and is usually associated with incest
<KimJong-Il>: monarchy in the postmodern world is a worse option than most
<KimJong-Il>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: take your time
<Nicholas_II>: Republics were not a new concept. The Romans existed 2,000 years ago and were a republic. Athens, a direct democracy, existed even before the Romans. But the Romans became a monarchy and became (after that transition) the most prosperous empire ever (at that time).
<Nicholas_II>: In a address to democractic power making the US into a powerhouse at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th ... At the closing of the 19th century, the two most prosperous states (by growth-rate) were autocratic monarchies. The German Empire and the Austria-Hungary.
<Nicholas_II>: Monarchy was not made irrelevant by the implementation of the democratic process. As said, the Romans and Athenians were both existent and democratic states. The Romans became a monarchy and after the Romans collapsed, monarchy was the domineering strucutre for the next 1,300 years (until the 1800s).
<Nicholas_II>: Primogeniture, the idea of passing power onto one's eldest child, is an efficient system. A republic's idea is to compete for power. This divides the masses and leads to power struggle in less stable states (i.e. Cuba 1959, Castro lost the election thus usurped the winner).
<Nicholas_II>: If power were given unto, as you said, a 12 year old. In most cases the child in question will be the "symbolic" leader, not the actual leader. In the case of Russia, the monarch's court elects a Regent from among themselves to rein until the monarch comes of age.
<Nicholas_II>: <KimJong-Il>: monarchy in the postmodern world is a worse option than most
<Nicholas_II>: As of right now, one of the most prosperous countries is a monarchy. Not even just that ... but an *absolute* monarchy - Saudi Arabia.
<Nicholas_II>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: Germany grew a whole lot, that is true. Then they killed off most of their bankers and acheived hyperinflation (File:Germany_Hyperinflation.svg [View next to chat] ). The Romans often killed off their leaders (Caesar), and had some nut jobs at that too (Nero). In the case of Akbar, the 12 year ol
<KimJong-Il>: d king, his Regent was power hungry and wanted to kill of the child, so it's not nessecerilly best to have a single leader, as that can happen
<KimJong-Il>: Also, even in our government, we have 2 leaders. In a monarchy, there is one leader, and he makes all of the desicions. So you would be going against your own word by taking part of a diarch /me drops mic
<KimJong-Il>: AND
<KimJong-Il>: One problem I have with monarchy is it almost always involves religion. I'm sure Saudi Arabia, being middle easter, must have tons of Muslim people. I'm sure their policies are made with their religion in mind, like Egypt did until they were overtaken. If the US did this, we would have public stonings for adultery.
<KimJong-Il>: One last point is that when Saudi arabia is succesful with their monarchy, that's only one example. There are many, many nations that thrive with their democray. USA, Canada, NZ, etc
<KimJong-Il>: (done)
<KimJong-Il>: care to make any more points, or are we done?
<Nicholas_II>: I have some
<Nicholas_II>: unless you wanna stop
<KimJong-Il>: nah, I'll let you put in your last thoughts
<Nicholas_II>: The German state which had the hyperinflation was, in fact, a republic and not a monarchy. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, abolished the German monarchy and exiled the king for life.
<Nicholas_II>: The proclaimed republic, one established by the treaty (drafted by such states as the US, UK, etc.) , the "Weimar Republic" was the one to have hyperinflation.
<KimJong-Il>: facist btw
<Nicholas_II>: not Hitler
<Nicholas_II>: Weimar was before
Nicholas_II has the talking stick
<KimJong-Il>: D:
<Nicholas_II>: I will definitely give you that point on the "diarchy", as the question specifically stated "monarch". But - in a sense - a diarchy is two monarchs.
<KimJong-Il>: (still different :X)
<Nicholas_II>: A monarchy does not inherently have to concern religion. Yes, Saudi Arabia is certainly not a secular society, as the US and UK are, but the UK has had the freedom of religion for quite some time, as well as some other examples.
<Nicholas_II>: (I suppose I am done)
We then opened up the channel for the spectators to speak.
#elysiandebateteam on IRC
