Interesting argument FOR absolute monarchy. As a red blooded American, I naturally recoil from the thought, but he may have a point.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A case for Monarchy?
- Thread starter FatherRuleMemes
- Start date
I am not opposed to it. God intends to establish one. He will be the King of kings so, it sounds like there will be other kings also that pay tribute to him.
The USA current government has grown hair and teeth in oozing masses in all kinds of hidden places.
I believe that a King would be better overall and easier to remove if the need arose.
Is the reason he wants absolute monarchy is because Lord is one?
That is bad reasoning because Lord is safe in his power and position and therefore dors't have to worry about staying in control.
Horewer, any other government has problem of staying in power and therefore can't in long run resist from social engineering compliant population.
Key reason why such monarch would be better is because he has vested interested into not economically destroying population since it's in his interest to leave something for his children.
Horewer, only way for his edicts to be enforced is by bureaucracy whose members have vested interested in expanding bureaucracy. Therefore, conflict will ensure since monarch allowing too much bureaucracy will kill economy.
Looking at historical lesson in long run bureaucracy had defeated monarchs.
Historically looking, any functional society requires somehow balance of power between different classes which stops power monopolisation which stops abuses.
Another requirement is no bureaucrats inventing rules who in long run cause infantilisation of populace and where every issue is due to not following issued rules.
That is bad reasoning because Lord is safe in his power and position and therefore dors't have to worry about staying in control.
Horewer, any other government has problem of staying in power and therefore can't in long run resist from social engineering compliant population.
Key reason why such monarch would be better is because he has vested interested into not economically destroying population since it's in his interest to leave something for his children.
Horewer, only way for his edicts to be enforced is by bureaucracy whose members have vested interested in expanding bureaucracy. Therefore, conflict will ensure since monarch allowing too much bureaucracy will kill economy.
Looking at historical lesson in long run bureaucracy had defeated monarchs.
Historically looking, any functional society requires somehow balance of power between different classes which stops power monopolisation which stops abuses.
Another requirement is no bureaucrats inventing rules who in long run cause infantilisation of populace and where every issue is due to not following issued rules.
He goes into multiple reasons why he believes that is the correct system. You should give it a listen.
Absolute monarchies enacted policies like prima noctae, the kings and queens seized property at will and either kept it or gave it to others to curry favor, they routinely executed their political opponents and inconvenient wives, and in the end they made a compelling argument to do away with absolute monarchies.
Constitutional monarchies that function with an elected government are in my opinion potentially more stable than a republic but only when the monarch protects the interests of the people over the interests of the government.
The United Kingdom was a constitutional monarchy but Queen Elizabeth and subsequently King Charles III have failed to intervene against government intrusion on the civil rights of their people, they've failed to speak out against the invasion of the UK by literal millions of criminal invaders, they've failed to Defend the Faith when the faith was under assault. Now the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth have devolved into authoritarian states where individual rights are a thing of the past.
Constitutional monarchies that function with an elected government are in my opinion potentially more stable than a republic but only when the monarch protects the interests of the people over the interests of the government.
The United Kingdom was a constitutional monarchy but Queen Elizabeth and subsequently King Charles III have failed to intervene against government intrusion on the civil rights of their people, they've failed to speak out against the invasion of the UK by literal millions of criminal invaders, they've failed to Defend the Faith when the faith was under assault. Now the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth have devolved into authoritarian states where individual rights are a thing of the past.
Look, it's simple. I can take a look.
Horewer, first task of any politic system is to eliminate possibility of any Stalin-like from starving it's own population which absolute monarchy per se doesn't stop.
So either he puts some safeguard in practice or in paper (like Constitution), horewer this isn't anymore absolutism.
Which means guy almost certainly didn't think thought. You can't just find reason for, you must ensure there aren't good reasons against.
Political system can't treated with mental process suitable for choosing vacation.
I’m a big fan of monarchies! If I’m the monarch.
He discusses what those safeguards would be. In his proposed system, there would be a king, but then there are also the lesser magistrates. If the king gets out of control, it is up to the lesser magistrates to reign him in.
One of the main benefits of a monarchy is that if he becomes oppressive, it is easier to get rid of one man than an entire entrenched system (like DOGE is running into).
He also argues that Monarchy is inevitable, similar to how patriarchy is inevitable.
If a people chooses this then fine, if not then the monarch will get what he deserves.
Where is it inevitable?