A political science question for fellow PF'ers: The Kings/Queens, or self government?

A little bit of a departure from our right/left battles, and more of an general assessment on the state of government as a whole. From antiquity, society was ruled by warlords and emperors, chiefs, kings and queens. This was the general state of affairs we could argue for as long as 3/4ths of human existence. It was only at the turn of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment movement that to use the words of an elitist from those times: Those pesky 'commoners' rose up to create the idea of self government that to a degree existed in Greece/Rome, followed by of course being established in America after our successful revolution against England.

After which through the various Wars of Europe(The Napoleonic Wars and both WWI/WWII) saw the end of almost every political-royal dynasty on the face of the earth. In the 77 years since WWII, self government has retained almost complete supremacy in all of the Western World, almost the entirety of Europe and even a solid presence in Asia(China not withstanding.), We of course have sustained various new challenges in those 77 years and I don't want to say we overcame them(as several factors from various different eras ie: Terrorism was born out of the Cold War still exist) but it's clear that the Western Governments were able to outlast these problems.

Yet, I still feel that the consistency, stability and even the endearing belief that a King/Queen or AKA a statesmen held in those days, also was able to outlast problems of a different sort. So which leads me to the question, and there's no right/wrong answer. I just happen to know mine being my preference for an American Empire.

So, what's your view on the history and present of human governments? Were the 'commoners' right in their revolt, or were they mistaken to leave the cradle's nest?

 

Your question comes down to, simply, are humans sufficiently competent to make decisions for themselves, as groups. My reply is that this, clearly, should be our goal, as allowing others to decide our fate, has always boded poorly, for the commoners. Even if this leads to many falls, along that path, the only way that we ever will reach that point of competence in self-government, is by practicing it.


As a couple of asides, we currently do have an "American Empire," at least of influence, even without being ruled by a king. Secondly, I find your pretensions of being in favor of Fascism to be rather insincere-- or perhaps clueless, is a more accurate description-- when you complain about American governments, with whose policies you do not agree (namely, Democratic ones), being autocratic, or some such. You clearly have no idea, or no desire, to live under a dictator-- unless of course, you agree with that dictator's vision, and actions. That is not how it works. You need to be just as willing to kiss the feet of Emperor Biden, as of Emperor Trump, regardless of how mistaken about anything, you may feel they are, or you do not have the temperament to be a Royal subject, or a Fascist follower.

 

Whatever secures your liberty, which republics have a better track record on than monarchies.

 

i bow to no one, and there ain't no "milords" around here.

we all put our pants on the same way.

"when adam delved and eve span
who then was the gentleman" wat tyler

 

It would seem that the best interests of a person are best served when they take responsibility for themselves, and power over their own lives. As a nation, that comes with caveats, primarily that you respect that as the right and duty of every other person as well, and secondly, that all have no right to do harm to others. This is of course saying that the greater our composite character and our dedication to supporting a free society, the better we will be at self-rule, being citizens instead of subjects. The best "regulator" is the self-regulator; we only need laws because some people refuse to self-regulate.

As a society- the only way to maintain such an environment is to exclude those who refuse to respect the fundamental principles that make it work, and refuse to self-regulate, refuse to allow others to do the same. . This is the purpose of all criminal law, and a lot of civil law as well. This too has a caveat, which is that while rules must be made judiciously and justly- they must also be supported and enforced, judiciously and justly. Once the rules become shades of grey rather than a clear line, are applied unequally or are selectively used for convenience- there are no rules. They become cosmetics with no function and lose the power to keep order in a society. Thus- our cultural variances determine if we can self rule successfully or not. If we lose sight of the fundamental truths, of right and wrong- we lose the ability to rule our own society.
It keeps coming back to the quality of our moral compass, the consistency of our honor.

 

The revolts after the enlightenment weren't about putting an end to Monarchy. They were about putting an end to authoritarianism. European Monarchies that respected human rights remained, and those that didn't were overthrown.

Before the enlightenment, Education was a privilege of the elites and the Church, and it was not accessible to the general public. It was the enlightenment that made it accessible. Education is indispensable to individual freedom. And most educated people will not give up their freedoms. For this reason, those who seek to impose an authoritarian regime attack it and limit it. They ban certain topics. They ban books. They attack public schools, Universities, teachers... They attack education because, to impose an authoritarian regime, an uneducated population is required.

Countries in the west like US and France, rose against the monarchy when enough people became educated to learn that there was an alternative to authoritarianism. Others like the Netherlands, did not, because the Monarchy valued science and education.

Even today, political movements that want to impose an authoritarian regime start by going after education.

Bottom line, to avoid a totalitarian regime, education is necessary. And to impose a totalitarian regime, education must be suppressed. In ancient times, the population was uneducated. So totalitarianism (in the form of Monarchy) was easy to maintain. Today, look for ANY attack on education (accusing teachers of being "groomers", for example, or attacking universities or defunding public schools...) to identify efforts to impose a totalitarian regime.

 

One possible first rough cut of governments separates them into democracies and those which are not democracies [monarchies, oligarchies, dictatorships, theocracies,].

In the latter, whether a government is good or bad depends upon how the executive component sees its responsibility.

Democratic governments ruled by the ballot box are 'We, the people' writ large. It is that old time-wounded force, the will of the people, which holds sway. If the people are ill-informed, indifferent, or form into a mob, we can expect the government to often act in ways which do not serve the people; the society at large.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

this is the original left vs right question, stemming from the paris tennis court where the supporters of louis bourbon's divine rights sat on the right while the freedom loving jacobins sat on the left.

"they were the best of times, they were the wordy of times" dickens

even today, authoritarian leaders claim to be "anointed" by god and we of the left call bull ****.

 

I like your "examples."

 

So, then, to the general question, are we better off electing our own leaders, you see no intrinsic advantage in it?

 

I would argue that is how it works. One of the reasons for the revolutions were precisely the leaders of their time making decisions that the majority or even a plural minority didn't like. That's how we came to know of the term 'minority rights'. Arguably, and this is only speaking rhetorically: There was more pressure on political leaders during the Enlightenment and its aftermath, then there is in the present day.

Let's take Congress, and 1/6 was a big deal and obviously shouldn't be allowed. But that was a mere election. Imagine if we as a populace(the same populace mind you that has a 16% approval rating of a Congress) were all of a sudden to snap and say 'F IT'.

Then instead of 834 out of 1,000 you might have tens of thousands of peacefully protesting Americans. Congress would have no choice but to act. They don't face that pressure today. For various reasons, but this Congress is so big to fail, it's bigger than fannie and freddie mac.
It's also rather unfair to not ask me to clarify my thoughts and then to assume them outright so let's begin with the following:

-While Political Scientists will differ in their explanations(some more complicated than others) a few distinctions are in order. 1) A Military State is not necessary for an Empire. That's just a separate thing altogether. London has lost her military aspirations, but the Crown is still very much relevant. 2) As to the topic of Social Obedience, I hate to quote this man because of how true and how dark the statement is but it's the truth. I'm surprised the trial didn't censor it.

“…It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”-Hermann Goering

This doesn't apply just to foreign policy/geopolitics/international relations, it applies to all matters of government. It's why one of the American Axioms that would be the counterpart would be Thomas Paine's to love the government, is to criticize it.

So just because the Democratic Primary thought 'the only way to beat Trump would be to elect this senile corpse of a man named Joe Biden' doesn't mean I'm anti-authoritarian. It just means the authoritarian in authority, in this case that senile fool is not worth my respect and in America, that is worthy of valid criticism.

While we're at it, you make(or someone else made) the valid observation that the Empires that respected human rights generally lasted longer. I pointed to the Napoleon wars, but Napoleon Bontaparte was one of the greatest gifts to Europe. Her "Sister French Republics" brought modernization to parts of Europe that were still beholden to the uneducated system that you speak of.

It is my view that Social Obedience is actually best maintained in peacetime and actually with relatively few restrictions. Hitler's SS and Mussolini's black boots may very well have intimidated those who didn't want to comply, but their disobedience was merely suppressed, it never went away. That's why Mussolini was hung, Hitler was bombed and in the end had to commit suicide.

If the government has to exercise force to create an 'obedient' society, then that government is weak. One final point to address to tie is altogether is whether America is an Empire. You're right that geographically, across 50 States and the third largest nation on earth we have by all rights to be known as an Empire. But an Empire is that of collective will. It is a coherent society in of itself.

America has neither individual nor collective will. We're all just a bunch of saps, trying to make sense of our otherwise endless existence. Basically, I'm echoing some of the early criticisms of the British as they observed America. Though we were originally to be a Constitutional Republic, the word 'democracy' somehow got thrown in there and has remained stuck ever since.

The Presidency is a figurehead, Congress is useless. If this is a democracy, it's one that makes even the fall of Athens laugh. What the Empire would do, is less of a political transformation and more of a social one, throwing away all of the abstract ideas that do not necessarily make up 'America' or even make any sense for us anymore at this stage.

It made sense to aim for a 'small, limited government' when we were just 13 states/colonies. But now with 50 States, we need a national policy and at that that, we need one that makes sense for all of the States. This can only be done through collaboration and a sense of wholeness that we do not have now.

 

I've heard the monarchy arguments and I don't think they really hold water. I still favor a Republic as a way to provide popular representation while still providing backstops against the hysteria's and passions of the moment. The key is the electorate. Who gets the vote? Who gets to participate in the political process? There are a lot of ways to cut that pie. I'm partial to to the "Starship Troopers" Republic in which military and veterans, as the ones who actually on the front lines of protecting society get to decide, but there are several other versions that might work, such as limiting the vote to people 30 and over, limiting it to couples with children, ect... the possibilities are endless, as long as the goal is a well governed society with some popular participation so people feel invested in society.

 

In your, so called, "Starship Troopers," Republic, none of the population, except soldiers (and perhaps some of their relatives), would have any reason to "feel invested in society (by which, I assume you mean to include its government authority)." In limiting the vote to the over 30 crowd, it is already predictable that this would create an enduring antagonism, a much more hostile generation gap, than anything this country had seen from its youthful ones, even during the 1960s. By cutting out anyone who did not have any children... well, hopefully, you get my point (even if you disagree with it).

 

I didn't expect anyone to agree with what I wrote, so I'm not surprised with your critique. However in general, a republic does give more representation to the general public than the other alternative in the OP, a monarchy. There are various ways to slice and dice an electorate, I mentioned two, veteran status and higher age eligibility, but I have ideas of who I want to decide who the political leaders are because that can have a direct result on how a country is run. With veterans you get an electorate as Heinlein said, "The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not." With the over 30 crowd, you get people who are, in general, settled, and are not willing burn down society for a slogan like "defund the police."

Now you may have a different vision for a society (keeping in mind this is all theoretical, none of these changes are actually going to happen) but you have not yet expressed it.

 

I think my general view has been readily discernible, from my posts, so far, but I will clarify, for you, that I agree with Winston Churchill:
“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

Like you, I do not believe that all voters are equally wise, equally knowledgeable about issues, equally educated about candidates.

Unlike you, I do not believe that the "good" and "bad" voters, can be separated along lines of age, land ownership, procreation/adoption of children, or even military service (as there were military members & veterans, among those who were, unmistakeably, assaulting our Capitol-- is this your idea of what a better grade of voter, looks like?). A country, IMO, needs more than soldiers, to thrive. What of all the "essential" workers, we depended upon, during the pandemic-- squat for them?

There are intelligent & informed young voters, and there are incredibly dense and uninformed, older voters (as should be obvious to all of us, around here). Hence, none of your yet stated, alternative systems, pass muster, in my book. The good news, from your perspective, should be that citizens under 30 years old, already vote at a lower rate, than older voters. The only compromised- overlap, I can see between us, is that I am not of the same opinion of those who advocate for making voting, in effect, mandatory. I believe that those who are at least responsible enough-- or so lacking, in a sense of the value of voting-- to prefer to skip it, and let those with greater interest in politics, decide for them, should be left in peace, to do so.

 

So your perfect system is our current one.

 

It was the self governing mode that led to democratic capitalism and free private enterprise which led to the greatest (maybe the only) expansion of a middle class with a more equitable distribution of wealth, prosperity, and sense of well being. Self government is not as stable, but stability is highly overrated. Cultures and societies with institutionalized slavery were extremely stable, but with a very poor distribution of prosperity and happiness among the people. Kingdoms and feudal estates were by an large very stable. But it was self government, as uniquely envisioned and implemented by our forefathers, that produced by far and away the greatest and most successful country ever. Unfortunately, over the past 20-40 years we have seen in America and the developed western world countries a distinct movement to more centralized control with less and less self government (other than cosmetically); we are too quickly for comfort returning to serfdom and a greater concentration of wealth and sense of well being among the clerisy.

 

You seem to have already forgotten the overall statement, with which I began: our system is far from "perfect;" it is the worst-- except for every other one that has been tried.
IOW, I am willing to consider changes (such as the "mandatory voting" idea). But the ones you suggested, as I explained, all seem as though they would only sow discord, by making large portions of society feel unrepresented. You would essentially create a tiered society, with non- voting, 2nd class citizens. I see this as a divisive plan. Have you no counter argument to that legitimate criticism, other than to pretend that I am set on things, just as they are, and so did not even consider your proposal?

 

it is suggested that your preference for an American Empire results in the decay of democracy at home, and i give the "Patriot Act" as an example, it is further suggested the the English Empire showed this to the world, we just dont learn from history many, many like having strong authoritarian leader ship defining things in a good/bad scenario, the problem is the world is not so easily defined IMO

 

Yes you're right, it would create a two tiered society of voters and non voters, but in the Starship Troopers example, anyone motivated to participate in the political process has the means to do so, volunteer. In the second example, the 30 and over, by the time you're incensed to do something about it, boom, you're thirty.

In both cases, everyone has an opportunity to participate. No one is being permanently shut out. As it happens, we already have your two tiered society, in the US half the eligible adults don't vote.

 

How has "education" been controlled since the 1880s?

Adam Smith used the word "education" 80 times in Wealth of Nations but economists do not talk about that.

 

To begin with your final point, any tier-system which is not coerced, is not analog to one that is. As to your offered vindications, for your proposals: in the case of the youth, not getting around to objecting to the unfairness of your system before 30, the examples of the Vietnam War protests, as well as the Civil Rights Movement, prove your rationale to be a baseless fantasy.

In your other prospective set-up, having a hugely swollen military, of people who are only there to get voting rights, is a completely impractical system, for the U.S. We are in a different situation, than is Israel. And all our military leaders prefer having motivated recruits, as opposed to draftees, which would be comparable to the type of recruits they would get, if people joined for the primary reason, to be allowed to vote (though it is impossible to know, how many would be driven to enlist, for this reason). If it were many, there would be the real risk of this leading those in power, or monied interests, who could use those in political power, "finding" more reasons to use our vast military, as has been the case, throughout history, whenever countries have kept very large, standing armies.

More likely, though, I think those excluded from voting-- i.e., non soldiers-- might see this as an unreasonable condition, in which case it matters not, that a means is offered, for their participation; the result is still the artificial creation of discontent, where there is no need of it.

What data can you quote, to support the idea, that military personnel (or older people), make "better" voting choices? The answer, of course, is none! What that system would be based upon, would be only your own opinion, that those who serve in our military, are more deserving of the right to vote, than the rest of us. I take it, from this, that you would qualify, under your system. But most people would not agree with that thesis.

As I'd initially replied, a country needs more than soldiers. There are many other people, in society, whose roles are just as valuable, in an individual sense. I had cited "essential workers," from our just passed pandemic restrictions-- police, firefighters, medical personnel, supply- chain workers, as those involved in our food supply, or transportation workers, who deliver all goods to market-- in case you have forgotten. IOW, there are many groups that could claim that they are more valuable to society, than the rest: the rich, for example, who supply money for investment-- maybe we should base voting on a person's wealth? Or what about land ownership-- landlords are certainly more important, proportionally, than tenants, aren't they? And everyone would, theoretically, have access to surmounting that bar, so that should lead to no real unrest, right?

If you're still missing my point, the removal of the right to vote, which for centuries, in the case of (especially white) men, and for a century, for women, has been considered a basic right of every citizen, cannot help but lead to resentment, with the friction leading to a more fractious society, creating competing factions, animosities, and absolutely less unity.



EDIT: While I know you had not been suggesting your idea for the same reason that I believe had motivated the subject-- finding a way to make all in society feel more invested in our country's welfare-- nor would the disunity, which your advocated changes would yield, create a more stable nation (which is the result, I think, you'd claimed you had been after).

 

The Vietnam war was an interesting analogy. It's really the reason we have the 26th Amendment; people didn't want to be drafted and didn't like the idea that they could be drafted and still not be able to vote. Now of course you can vote, but can't drink. That would have not been an issue under a Starship Troopers Republic of course, since those are the people who vote and by extension, make the decisions on going to war.

And speaking of Starship Troopers, I apologize. I used the term assuming that people would know what I war referring to, but the gist of the Starship Troopers system is that voting and full citizenship isn't just limited to military and veterans, but everyone has the opportunity to volunteer for some Federal service, it's not strictly limited to military service. Posting on a political forum I assume everyone knows what I mean but since you clearly didn't I should have explained in more detail.

As for this comment, "What data can you quote, to support the idea, that military personnel (or older people), make "better" voting choices? The answer, of course, is none! "

First you have to define what you mean by "better." Since you like the current system, we already have better by your lights, but I think by my lights, it's respect for law and upholding society, not tearing it down. In short, I want the people who put the shopping carts back, not the ones who just leave them in the parking lot.

 

As I am one of those who always returns my own (& not infrequently others', which I come across) shopping cart, but have never served in the military, your explanation is a fail. I note, however, your continued attempt to rely on a discrediting of my valid critiques not through any logical refutation of the ideas, per se, but by trying to tie me to the results of the current system. It is an illogical assumption, that I must be happy with all those elected, if I support the current system. While you also tried to belittle my rationally laid out criticism of your idea, because I was not familiar with the specifics of "Starship Troopers," which I assumed had to do with the movie, of the same name (which would hardly make it a measure of another's political knowledge or savvy)--

-- I had been under the impression, since I am posting on a debate forum, that everyone understands what it means to make a logical argument, but since you clearly don't, I will explain. If the data exists, as to the voting preferences of the military, in past elections (even if it is only poll data), then that is what you should supply, to try to buffer your case; not your lame shopping cart example, combined with your meritless attempts to erode my own credibility. You could say, perhaps: see, the military voted to re-elect Trump! That proves that their choices would better install leaders with "respect for law and upholding society, not tearing it down," than the choices of the rabble, of our current citizenry.

You could try to make that case, anyway.

 

So you would leave the decision to go to war, up to a disproportionately large number of 18 year olds, who were not college material. Interesting. Does it not bother you that this is directly contradictory to your other stipulated change to voting, of postponing that right, until people reach the age of 30?