Royalty in the 21st century?

[kkck]

Or does it just appeal to people to think it gives a chance for change? Just think how little difference exists between Tories and Labour, or the Democrats and the Republicans, whilst most political issues either exist only as rhetoric or are irrelevant to how society runs. So just like under any other form of government, there exists a status quo in society, and the people at the top don't want that to change, they won't let it.

Politics is like religion, people take part because it gives them a sense of hope, and their desire to believe in something is why they end up being used by the people bringing the messages of hope. Like with religion, the only way to free yourself from these people is to reject their existing political system and its parties.

I don't think it is quite that simplistic. One way or the other society has changed due to all those things, that much is unquestionable. Granted, the world is far from perfect but considering how things have changed I would argue progress has been made. Not even 40 years ago it was still controversial whether women should have opinions (and 60 they plainly didn't), not 80 years ago there were still kids working factories 8 hours a day for negligible amounts of money, 150 years ago the middle classes had no influence whatsoever, life expectancy has increased significantly to say the least.... Now, there are plenty of places that still have those issues however at least the developed nations have made progress in those areas.

Now, I do agree in that politics are messed up (they are more ideological than practical for the most part) however that does not mean change hasn't been achieved over long periods of time.

[faintsmile1992]

But the fact that there was a scandal shows that some sort of counter power exists and that is what help decreasing corruption.
As for hereditary governments, you will also need something to legitimate your son place. It's not like nobody would like to take the place once you die.

No it doesn't lol, if you follow what happened it showed any 'counter power' has no power whatsoever.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

I don't think it is quite that simplistic. One way or the other society has changed due to all those things, that much is unquestionable. Granted, the world is far from perfect but considering how things have changed I would argue progress has been made. Not even 40 years ago it was still controversial whether women should have opinions (and 60 they plainly didn't), not 80 years ago there were still kids working factories 8 hours a day for negligible amounts of money, 150 years ago the middle classes had no influence whatsoever, life expectancy has increased significantly to say the least.... Now, there are plenty of places that still have those issues however at least the developed nations have made progress in those areas.

What you think is 'progress' is a vale judgement if you're referring to your personal preferences, and if you're referring to the myth of inevitable progress, then you're wrong, because history isn't headed in any one direction. Is it really good that the middle classes have more influence? I don't like them very much. Is it even true that "40 years ago it was still controversial whether women should have opinions (and 60 they plainly didn't)"? Of course not, its a feminist myth, but even if it was, it doesn't change that men's legal rights have gone down as a result of such changes, read The Spearhead. I don't support feminism and its associated social changes because they don't benefit me, and I share more interests in common with the Men's Rights Movement who wish to put things back as they were.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05...rican-history/

Now, I do agree in that politics are messed up (they are more ideological than practical for the most part) however that does not mean change hasn't been achieved over long periods of time.

So? Change happens in any society. Do you think that if you look at the history of monarchist Britain from the house of Normandy till Cromwell temporarily abolished the monarchy, there were no social changes? Besides, why exactly is change good in itself? Someone could just as easily say all change is bad, and it would make no more or less sense lol.

[kkck]

I agree in that history is not headed in any one direction and I do agree that progress is far from inevitable (my own home country seems bent on going backwards) but I do see progress (or at least what I consider progress ) and change as a good thing (I get bored easily). I would agree in that some aspects or forms of feminism go too far to say the very least however in principle some of the changes brought by have been very benefitial. Women were in fact basically exiled from a number of jobs in the past and never given the chance to go in certain directions (even if ultimately a negligible amount of women would want those jobs they should have a fair chance at it -which I agree could be a subjective point). Heck, even in my own family I would see among my grandparents and great grandparents the notion that women should stay at home and be moms.... Thank god my parents did not inherit that notion because I will be damned the day I see my sister having the sole purpose in life of being a mom and taking care of some dude who thinks he is smarter than her (specially since she actually is a genius, her ability for math in particular is by all intents and purposes more than exceptional).

As for the last part, I don't quite agree. The notion that all change is bad would in itself imply that things as they are are perfect which is an absurd point to make. On the other hand the notion that change is good implies that things could be better, which is at large perfectly true (or at least could be true). Of course, change can be bad, change is not necessarily a good thing however that only applies to specific points... Of course, this also depends on what people view as better (but I don't particularly care a rats ass about that)....

[ashher]

@faintsmile sorry i'm on a mobile and can't quote your post. So carrying on from our last posts, and after reading your other posts, its clear to me that you hold a strange position of mixed nihilism('nothing has meaning'???) and ultra anti-conventional attitude. I look at your age and i see 19, and i remember...oh that was not so long ago for me either. At that age, you read your first few cleverly written books(mine were some communist ones) and your head goes in an overdrive, and you think you've solved everything. Its really not so simple. Your disdain about oligarchy hiding in democracy is not entirely unfounded(i'm sure you can find good quotes on that, since there is a prominent school of thought in existance that think all power structures ultimately end up in oligarchy). However quotes don't prove a point, and there are always reasons why our history took certain directions and not the others. Democracy is the closest to come towards distributing power to ppl fairly. And its not only about one vote as you said in your post. Its about a very different culture and values which couldn't have flourished without democracy. Monarchy doesn't question oligarchy, nor does it try to obliterate it. The basis of oligarchy there is incredibly narrow: families. In democracy, blood is not the only thing that matters...a lot of factors come into play, which means that the size of influential groups are much larger than any other system. Also it means that there are much more opportunities for a normal person to gain entry into the influential group. Also the relation between the ruling and the ruled is much different in democracy than in other systems. The line of distinction between these two are much less defined than in monarchy, so is the extent to which the rulers can exercise their power on the ruled. These factors combined to allow for a greater scope of freedom, both positive and negative, for a much larger population than monarchy could possibly provide.

[faintsmile1992]

I agree in that history is not headed in any one direction and I do agree that progress is far from inevitable (my own home country seems bent on going backwards) but I do see progress (or at least what I consider progress ) and change as a good thing (I get bored easily). I would agree in that some aspects or forms of feminism go too far to say the very least however in principle some of the changes brought by have been very benefitial. Women were in fact basically exiled from a number of jobs in the past and never given the chance to go in certain directions (even if ultimately a negligible amount of women would want those jobs they should have a fair chance at it -which I agree could be a subjective point).

Why is this good? There are biological differences between men and women that make the genders suitable for different jobs, so why shouldn't a societies norms reflect HBD? The ideal of equality isn't based on observable human nature, its purely abstract, its only a belief.

Heck, even in my own family I would see among my grandparents and great grandparents the notion that women should stay at home and be moms.... Thank god my parents did not inherit that notion because I will be damned the day I see my sister having the sole purpose in life of being a mom and taking care of some dude who thinks he is smarter than her (specially since she actually is a genius, her ability for math in particular is by all intents and purposes more than exceptional).

If your sister has a higher than average IQ its even more desirable she has children with someone suitable and starts a family as early as possible. Even if motherhood isn't a females only purpose, it should still be her primary social function over some career. A woman's reproductive fitness declines with age but her education and a career can always wait.

As for the last part, I don't quite agree. The notion that all change is bad would in itself imply that things as they are are perfect which is an absurd point to make. On the other hand the notion that change is good implies that things could be better, which is at large perfectly true (or at least could be true). Of course, change can be bad, change is not necessarily a good thing however that only applies to specific points... Of course, this also depends on what people view as better (but I don't particularly care a rats ass about that)....

But social change does bring risk that things could go wrong, whilst the evidence of the past tells us what works. There's no such evidence from the future after the change, because it hasn't happened yet. The left (and certain others) don't use the accumulated wisdom of tradition when they reason their social changes, they dismiss it.

[kkck]

I am not saying women must go for certain jobs, I am only saying that if even one woman wants to go outside the norm then there should be the means for her to have an honest shot at it.

Stay away from my sister


Ultimately the only way to see if something works in a social context is to try it though. Obviously there are things that won't but that only means they will remain in history as things which don't work.... And ultimately, if we don't try new stuff we won't ever know if it would have worked as we can't actually test it out.

[k-dom]

But social change does bring risk that things could go wrong, whilst the evidence of the past tells us what works. There's no such evidence from the future after the change, because it hasn't happened yet. The left (and certain others) don't use the accumulated wisdom of tradition when they reason their social changes, they dismiss it.

Talking about coincidence, your statement reminds me a scene of 7 seeds chapter released today. You would make a perfect member of team Summer A :-)

[faintsmile1992]

@faintsmile sorry i'm on a mobile and can't quote your post. So carrying on from our last posts, and after reading your other posts, its clear to me that you hold a strange position of mixed nihilism('nothing has meaning'???) and ultra anti-conventional attitude.

It's actually a fact that nothing possesses meaning in itself, because meanings are generated in the brain of the observer rather than being innate properties of phenomena. But my point was that your sentence didn't actually mean anything as you expressed it, it just looked like its philosophical ("there is always a chance of being wrong. but obliterating that very option of choice means that even the right things are meaningless.")

I look at your age and i see 19, and i remember...oh that was not so long ago for me either. At that age, you read your first few cleverly written books(mine were some communist ones) and your head goes in an overdrive, and you think you've solved everything. Its really not so simple.

Where did I ever say that I did? I didn't say i had a solution, I said that democracy failed to solve anything.

Your disdain about oligarchy hiding in democracy is not entirely unfounded(i'm sure you can find good quotes on that, since there is a prominent school of thought in existance that think all power structures ultimately end up in oligarchy).

But its entirely founded because just as with socialism, the emergence of a stable social elite refutes the arguments in favour of democracy, if it isn't really 'rule by the people' in practice. There isn't even a reason to take pro-democracy arguments seriously if it never works as its supposed to, same as there isn't when people present pro-Communist ones.

However quotes don't prove a point, and there are always reasons why our history took certain directions and not the others. Democracy is the closest to come towards distributing power to ppl fairly. And its not only about one vote as you said in your post.

Of course the appeal of democracy is about 'one man one vote' because its appeal is based on the idea that every single vote counts. As such the appeal of democracy is irrational, because when you think about it statistically, the idea that every man counts under democracy (or any form of government) is as irrational as prayer.

I might be 19 but there's a reason older voters get jaded lol.

Its about a very different culture and values which couldn't have flourished without democracy.

That's not an argument for democracy lol. Like I said before, this democratic society needs to be purged of its permissiveness, and once you look past the sexual freedom, the murder of the unborn and the tolerance of drunken behaviour there isn't a lot of freedom here in the UK.

Monarchy doesn't question oligarchy, nor does it try to obliterate it.

Huh? Our modern oligarchy is a result of the rise of the third estate. Traditional social elites prevented the kind of problems we have now with corporations and pressure groups controlling society, they kept it functioning as an organism for the good of the collective. Just compare how Ivan IV Vasilyevich suppressed the boyars who controlled Russia by controlling the trade, and compare that to the influence the Russian oligarchs have over that country today! Russia needs another powerful, autocratic leader like Tsar Ivan to sort it out, and so does Britain to set us free from the left-wing capitalism that we now live under.

The basis of oligarchy there is incredibly narrow: families.

So? Besides this not being the definition of oligarchy as I meant (as understood by the Greeks), such nepotism is natural. I should have been clearer about the definition I was using but I'm using the older definition because the more modern definition of 'oligarchy' is useless when we're comparing forms of government, if human nature means some kind of social inequality is a universal among statist societies.

In democracy, blood is not the only thing that matters...a lot of factors come into play, which means that the size of influential groups are much larger than any other system. Also it means that there are much more opportunities for a normal person to gain entry into the influential group. Also the relation between the ruling and the ruled is much different in democracy than in other systems. The line of distinction between these two are much less defined than in monarchy, so is the extent to which the rulers can exercise their power on the ruled. These factors combined to allow for a greater scope of freedom, both positive and negative, for a much larger population than monarchy could possibly provide.

But why is social mobility good in itself? *shrugs*

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

Talking about coincidence, your statement reminds me a scene of 7 seeds chapter released today. You would make a perfect member of team Summer A :-)

I'm always trying new things out, but I'm also realistic, and most social reformers are idealistic. Ideals like feminism and multiculturalism have failed because they weren't rooted in accumulated wisdom, but in resentment against it. Its the same with democracy, the idea was rooted in resentment against the existing social eite (the aristocracy) yet in practice everything's now run for the benefit of corporations and pressure groups.

"The highfalutin aims of democracy, whether real or imaginary, are always assumed to be identical with its achievements. This, of course, is sheer hallucination. Not one of those aims, not even the aim of giving every adult a vote, has been realized. It has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." - Henry Lewis Mencken, who understood democracy

[Kaiten]

I would like to remind everyone that the topic is the purpose of royalty in the 21st century. This thread is not intended as a comparative government thread. Please stick to the intended topic, off topic posts will be deleted. I have not deleted any posts as virtually this entire thread is off topic. All discussion not related to the thesis statement in the OP must cease immediately.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

My opinion is that monarchy in Europe remains a living link to the past and tradition. Most of the constitutional monarchies slowly reformed, taking power away from the throne. Europe's remaining nobility is largely harmless, symbols of state and nothing more. The symbolism largely represents the long history of these countries, rather than carrying direct political meaning.

[Aazholh]

In the US, I feel that it is the celebrities that are considered royalty. Every time you checkout at a grocery store you see them on the magazines. On the internet or on television. They don't have political power (well unless you count Ronald Reagan and Arnold), but they do have the power to sway what the people buy, their tastes in music, even who to vote for. And behind them are the corporations that got them there in the first place. It's all so very sickening.

[benelori]

Royalty these days is a symbol, and some figures of royalty who have been actual heads of state can offer interesting perspectives on moral and social issues...and that's what they have been reduced to...icons who have the 'duty'(for the past's sake) to be leading figures in the moral and social issues of the world or their own countries...

Our own king, Mihai the First, had a speech in the parliament, not long ago and it was an interesting thing to watch...his entire stature, choice of words was worthy of a 'good king' if I'm allowed the term...it was clear that from the beginning of his life he was educated to be head of state, and he was for a brief time...now despite some of his decisions in the past, his points were clear and offered an honest point of view about the problems that we have in this country...and him being head of state, I think that his views were worth taking into consideration...