The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Monarchy and Democracy II

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,931 times Debate No: 21127
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I just had a debate on this subject, and while I did very much enjoy it, it didn't quite satisfy my desire to argue against democracy, so I'm setting this up again.

The purpose of this debate will be an attempt by me to defend Hoppes thesis in the book Democracy: The God that Failed regarding Monarchy and Democracy; that is that Monarchy is a superior system of government than Democracy, a position contrary to my own beliefs.

The burden of proof is shared. My Opponent acknowledges that they will have to present a case in affirmation of democracy themselves, merely trying to refute my arguments is an automatic forfeit. Round one is for acceptance.

We will be using Hoppes definitions: Monarchy is privately owned government ultimately ruled by one individual who generally gained his status via the position of his birth. Dictators in the modern sense who sieze power without respect to private property, law and order, or social facilitation (as has been the general trend for autocrats in modern times) are not considered Monarchs. Monarchs pass on their kingdom to their heir after they die, and a kings kingdom is his personal property.

Democracy is government owned publically. Leaders are chosen directly by the people, or decisions are made directly by the people (my opponent must choose to defend either representative democracy (Republic) or direct democracy), and decisions are made on the basis or majority rules be it a vote in Congress, a public referrendum, ect.

The Resolution is referring to rule of large territories in nation-states, advancing an argument such as democracy is better for a small town, or monarchy is better for family units or tribes leads to an auto-loss.

The debate will center mostly around the historical effects of democracy, as well as inherent advantages of Monarchy.


Alright. I accept this debate :)

This is going to be interesting, because I've never actually thought about the benefits of monarchy. Due to the necessity of historical reference, I've decided to defend representative democracy, simply because that's much more applicable.

Since I'm neg, I think I'll just leave the first round as acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your acceptance! I'll just copy my case from my previous debate--the source page as well (for round one).

C1: Foreign Relations

A. War

War in the modern sense is perhaps the most economically destructive of all Human activities, because it forces nations to use resources for the sole purpose of destroying another nations resources and people thus leading to resource depletion and impovershiment. It is best to entirely avoid warfare. Since a Kings kingdom is his personal property,he therefore will, as is the nature of mankind, generally avoid actions that lower the value of his property[1]. A king will tend to avoid unprofitable or particularly destructive wars in order to maximize his wealth. Further, under Monarchy war is a contest between two men, not two nations and the conflicts tend to be of a more personal nature[2], and are to be funded by a Kings personal finances and military. Old fashioned wars consisted of strategic battles between armies, with a clear distinction between combatants and non-combbatants; a King will not want his military to destroy the enemies resources lest they become his resources, and the economic destruction of warare is systematically reduced. Further, since soldiers are expensive to train and equip, large battles and slaughter will tend to be avoided[2].

Conversly, wars conducted by democratic powers tend to be total wars, where the war affects the enitre population in one way or another. Wars are no longer funded by a soveirgns personal wealth, but rather by tax payer dollars. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants is blurred, and modern wars have seen unprecendented destruction of innocent life [3, 4, 5] with civilians often being actual military targets[6]. Modern wars are based off ofideological or ethnic differences between peoples as opposed to personal ones between rulers[7]. This helps explain the modern phenomenom of nations violating the rights of their own populace during wartime [8,9]. Soldiers are no longer valuable tools, but instead cheaply conscripted peasants to be thrown away. Most importantly, democratic rulers are not fighting wars for profit, but rather for ideology and thus will not hesitate to destroy territories, economies, and peoples[10,13], and will not rest until their enemies are totally defeated regardless of the consequences[11, 12].

B. Diplomacy

For the reasons elaborated above, Monarchs will prefer to solve disputes with diplomacy. Unlike Democracies, a Monarch has the option of marrying a Prince or Princess to a family member of another ruler, sealing their alliance with shared blood. Monarchs will be less likely to break treaties when their own families are at risk of retribution, unlike Democracies who suffer no consequences from violating treaties with weaker nations [14]. Further, since Monarchs hold their position for life, an incompetent or abusive Monarch runs the risk of being assassinated by either a member of his own family or a member of the populace. Since Democratic rulers have limited terms, they are rarely assassinated and thus allowed to destroy their nation during their term.

C2: Economics

A. Accountability

In democracies, representatives or presidents who cause economic destruction are not held accountable for their actions, and thus have no incentive to not run their countries economy into the ground[15]. Hoppe (47-48) writes:

"..the caretaker of a publically owned government will try and maximize not total governmental wealth (capital values and current income) but current income (regardless, and at the expense of capital values). Indeed, even if the caretaker wishes to act differently, he cannot, for as public property governmental resources are unsaleable, and without market prices economic calculation is impossible. Accordingly, it must be regarded as unavoidable that public government ownership will result in continual capital consumption.....a caretaker will quickly use up as much of the governments resources as possible, for what he does not consume now, he may never be able to consume."

In a Monarchy, Monarchs can literally go bankrupt, and be forced to liquidate governmental assets[16]. Compare this to economically destructive politicians who generally recieve capital after their rule has expired, even if they destroyed a nations economy.

B. Taxation

There can be no doubt that taxation (governmetal theft) has increased massively during the democratic age, from around 5% to often over 40%[17]. As explained above, publicly owned governments cannot effectively allocate resources, so this money is litrally thrown away. The explanation behind this phenomenom is that under democracy, subjects erroneously believe that officials are their agents, and that they themselves might be in charge of their government one day. The result is that unlike Monarchy, where every action from the Royal family is viewed as a dangerous act of exploitation, democratic subjects often embrace large and powerful governments. See more on this in C3.

C. Fiat Money

Monarchs never managed to switch to fiat money[18], and never truly gained control of their entire nations economy. Royal mints created coins, certainly but the material they were created from always had to be something of legitimately recognized value. The single handed control of a nations money supply was rightly viewed as too dangerous for anyone to wield. Compare that to to the modern day, where the USD, widely considered one of the most stable currencies, loses 2-6% of it's value every year[19].

D. Productivity

Since a king is interested in maximizing wealth, he will take steps to rid his kingdom of unproductive people. Under democracy, the situation is reversed. A productive individual has the same voice as a bum, and thus many votes are garnered by catering to the lowest rungs of society. A systematic incentive towards non production is thus created.

C3: Public relations

A. Tyranny

Thomas Jefferson apty stated: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% can vote away the rights of the other 49%". It was for this reason that Jefferson, along with his fellow founders, took strict steps to defend against the mob in the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the idea of a constitutionally limited government is nothing but an idealistic fantasy. Hoppe writes (contrasting the founders time with the present day)[20]:

"Two-hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and Silver have been replaced by government manufactured paper...the meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid...every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountais of paper laws...the committment to free trade and non-intervensionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism."

Under majority rule, respect for law and order has declined, and rights are now often viewed as government given privileges as opposed to immutable values.

B. Corruption

Under Monarchy, a king is not chosen,he is born into his position. This does not ensure that he will be a good ruler, but it certainly does not prohibit it. Under democracy however, the only people who can gain power are those skilled in lying, manipulation, and false promises. This ensures that only the corrupt will rise to power.

C. Law & Order

A Kings special powers rest upon the publics view of his right to use them as legitimate[21]. A Monarch will thus do all in his power to uphold the rules of old, and respect for the law, for if he does not respect the natural (IE Moral) law, why should his subjects respect his laws? This helps to explain why the most of human rights violations such as genocide did not occur as much under Monarchy[22].

Vote Pro.;


Alright, let's start.

Before I begin, I would like to point things out with his definition: the individual gains his status via the position of his birth. This clearly distinguishes his "monarchy" from the Roman Kingdom, in which the people elected the king, and no king relied on strength to keep the throne.

First off, his first major point was war. He went off on tangents on how kings are less likely to throw their country into warfare than in a democratic government. First off, there is an extremely long list of wars that have been declared by these rulers. Although the majority of kings are relatively "good," so to speak, the instability of the system leaves the country too open for bloodthirsty rulers. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples: Constantine, when he declared war against un-christian countries; Numerous fights for the chair of king (that was never a problem with the Romans) took place in Britain - for example, the War of Roses.

He continued to claim the following:

"Conversly, wars conducted by democratic powers tend to be total wars, where the war affects the enitre population in one way or another. Wars are no longer funded by a soveirgns personal wealth, but rather by tax payer dollars. "

Which is not backed up by his sources whatsoever. His source 3 and 4 have no correlation, and his source 5 is about the Iraq war, which doesn't back up his generalization whatsoever. And his assertion has almost no point to it - all war affects the population.

"Most importantly, democratic rulers are not fighting wars for profit, but rather for ideology and thus will not hesitate to destroy territories, economies, and peoples[10,13], and will not rest until their enemies are totally defeated regardless of the consequences[11, 12]. "

First off, this is a direct contradiction with his previous claim that war was the "most economically destructive" activity.

His second major point, Diplomacy, has almost no correlation to the first. His first point claims that democracy is not hesitant to go to war - however, he never asserts that Monarchy is any better. Therefore, he cannot come to the conclusion that Monarchs will prefer to solve disputes.

He continues in his point to say that abusive Monarchs may be assassinated. I fail to see how this shows that Monarchy is better; the very point that he brings infers that it has happened before. When monarchs are assassinated, it leaves the country in turmoil due to a lack of leadership. Since democratic rulers have limited terms, they don't run the risk of assassination and CAN be impeached, as shown with president Andrew Jackson. Monarchs are life or death, which is not a stable way of running a government, for obvious reasons.

His next point, Accountability can be taken apart as follows:

"In democracies, representatives or presidents who cause economic destruction are not held accountable for their actions, and thus have no incentive to not run their countries economy into the ground[15]... even if they destroyed a nations economy. "
He contradicts himself in claiming that they destroyed the economy. On the other hand, while he does have a source, he gives no historical examples on when a representative has destroyed the government. Keep in mind, if this is a democracy, there will be no complete power, and it is the people that make the decision, as was defined by my opponent. Therefore, there are no examples of a country's economy being destroyed because of democracy. On the other hand, Monarchs have gone bankrupt before, and because there is no check-and-balance system, it is completely their fault. This, again, relates to his definition. If monarchs are determined by their birth, the government is an unstable system, and therefore is prone to deleterious decisions by the monarch.

His point on taxation is easy to refute. Kings did not provide mandatory education, nor did they pay for public services. The mandatory education, in fact, came around with democracy. The increase in taxes is due to the increase in government spending for public services.

His point on Fiat Money directly contradicts his definition - the monarchs are supposed to assume complete authority. However, his assertion does not affect democracy; democracy does not control the economy either.

His point on productivity has no source nor evidence to illustrate his point. And the idea that kings will "get rid of unproductive people" is rather ominous.

His point on tyranny is not really related to this, and his point on corruption practically has no source and he admits that kings are prone to corruption.

His point on order is a restatement of his entire case - again, kings are prone to corruption, and they hold absolute power, leading to the cases of tyranny.

Now onto the Negation Case:

First, democracy allows people to actively express their voice.
This is a rather self-explanatory point, people can talk to the government directly and influence the decisions. A good example of this would be SOPA, where thousands of websites shut down and the case was dropped immediately. Furthermore, until the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta, individuals rarely had rights such as the freedom of speech, etc. that are guaranteed in a democracy.

Second, democratic decisions are balanced by the power of the people and the unique government.
This is another self-explanatory point. The SOPA example also furthers this point. In our democracy, we have several branches of government with a unique system of checks and balances. If my opponent brings up Britain and their Parliament, let me remind the reader that this is no longer the monarchy as he defined - the monarch doesn't have complete power over the country. His definition only allows monarchs to have complete power - which means that the decisions are rarely affected and are mostly made by his whim.

Third, democracy is less prone to corruption.
Due to the necessity of appealing to the masses, democracy is something that is not as prone to corruption, due to the necessity of the people's votes. Therefore, all the members are chosen according to the people - and they can be impeached accordingly. Tyranny is obviously an easy transformation for most governments run on a monarchy. Let me remind you that all of Rome is technically "democratic," as the people elected the leaders. And remember that not a single drop of blood was shed in the Roman Kingdom period over the throne.

For the last portion of my arguments, I would like to point out things thus far in the debate:

1. My opponent has not won in terms of his standard - examples.
2. My opponent hasn't shown how democracy is worse in terms of corruption, neither has he aptly proved his assertions on productivity, taxation, nor accountability.
3. I have proven his assertions either incorrect or invalid, and have provided several arguments for democracy.

Due to the fact that my opponent has provided absolutely no examples of his points, and only can offer a few opinions, I strongly assert that Democracy is better than Monarchy in almost every aspect.
For these reasons, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank's Con. Also, to make this debate easier for the readers, I would respectfully ask if you would respond to my contentions/subpoints with their headings ("Corruption", for example).

I'll refute Cons case first, then defend mine.

My Opponent is mistaken. My definition states that Kings generally gain their status via birth--not always. Rome (when it was not a republic) was an elective Monarchy. The argument is silly anyway, having an elected King is clearly not what comes to ones mind when they think of democracy. I'll bring cards to support this if it ever becomes a major point of clash.

Voice expression

XA my Contention 3 here, Monarchs are on balance more less corrupt than democracies. Turn the SOPA example, because the fact that such an oppressive hinderance to public access of information was even considered for legistlation speaks volumes about the oppressiveness of modern Democracies. Cons Magna Carta example makes a case for constituional monarchy, not democracy.

There is simple no substance behind this argument anyway; to argue that people are more free now than they were under Monarchy is just absurd. Literally every year governments pass heaps of new paper laws into legistlation, encroaching on every aspect of their civilians lives, the power of the American government, to name an example, has experienced non stop growth and has engaged in the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for merely wanting to peacefully leave their country[1]. Democracies have the power to spy on their citizens [2], execute their citizens, and detain them without consequence[3]. The principle of victim compensation, held during the monarchial age to be the fundamental pillar of justice has totally disappeared during the democratic one[4]; the Korematsu ruling gave the government the power to imprison their citizens, and the U.S. governments commitment to peace and non intervension has been replaced by a policy of warmongering. Modern democracies everywhere are trying implement National ID systems, so that big brother can constantly keep tabs on us.

This is further unwarranted when we examine the extremely anti-liberal policies that get implemented once the bigotry and ignorance of the mob seeks into democratic legistlation[5].

Balanced power

My Opponents system of checks and balances needs to be more fleshed out. I understand the need for brevity, but to merely assert this as "self explanatory" is fallacious; I'll refute the general idea anyway. My Opponents argument runs under the ignorant assumption that the system of checks and balances will remain. The modern history of the U.S. disproves this. Consider that the power of the Federal Government has done nothing but grow.

Robert Higgs contrasts the early American government with today[6]:

"There was a time, long ago, when the average American could go about his daily business hardly aware of the government...he could decide what, how, when, and where to produce and sell his goods...Just think: no farm subsidies, price supports,or acreage controls; no Federal Trade Commission; no antitrust laws; no Interstate Commerce National Labor Relations board; no federal consumer "protection" laws; no Security and Exchange commision; no Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, no Departnment of Health and Human Services...There were no general sales taxes, no Social Security taxes, no income taxes. Though governmental officials were corrupt then as nw, they had vastly less to be corrupt with. Private citizens spent about fifteen times more than all governments combined. Those days, alas, are long gone."

Democracy ensures a steady increase of governmental power.

The initial premise is foolish to begin with--why should we assume governments will adhere to checks and balances when governmantal officials have the power to amend them? Only the Supreme Court, the least democratic of U.S. governmantal institutions, has bothered to uphold the constitution, and their confirmation requirement in the Senate has weakened even their integrity. Constitutionally limited governments are a myth.


This is just simply false. As my case shows, Democratic elections ensure corruption. Hoppe writes[7]:

"The selection of governmental rulers by means of popular elections makes it practically impossible that any good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually ensures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government; indeed as is the result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals."

My Opponent has yet to argue any impact as to why satisfying the whims of the mob is good, and his Rome example is not only not fleshed out enough to be an actual point, but it also is much closer to an elective Monarchy, which has historically existed[8], than a democracy.

==My Case==


My Opponent misunderstands my point--it isnt that Monarchs avoid war entirely, but rather that ones devoted to self interest (as most were) will be more careful about it. My opponent brings up some exceptions, but this just serves to prove my point even more--these examples are so significant precisely because they're exceptions. Besides, none of them brought destruction on the scale of modern total wars. That individuals fought over the title of King proves that princely disputes tend to be personal ones, not ideological ones.

My Opponent then procedes to attack my sources instead of logic. World War I became an ideological conflict once the U.S. got involved and Russia withdrew, and World War II was an ideological conflict between Liberal Democracy and Facism. Iraq was a mixture of political, ideological, and economic factors but there can be no doubt that the ideological difference between the liberal democratic U.S. and the theocratic Iraqian dictatorship played a significant part in the war propaganda.

He essentially drops the diplomacy point--he does not dispute the unique monarchial advantage of marriage and treaty fufillment, thus conceding to them. His only objection is based off a poor understanding of the argument, monarchs will try and solve disputes other ways because they have an incentive towards retaining wealth.

His objection to the assassination point is silly; generally when monarchs are disposed, it is because another is ready to take his place. This ensures that incredibly incompetent monarchs will not remain in power. To his impeachment point, I ask how many rulers have actually been removed from office due to impeachment?



Con makes the incredibly ridiculous argument that there are no historical examples of democratic governments ruining a nations economy. He concedes to the arguments by dropping the logic. Practically every major recession has been the result of failed government intervention; I'll link a CATO article explaining this to better illustrate the point to those who dont understand it.

He concedes that monarchs can go bankrupt- meaning that they are less likely to rack up debt, like government officials.

Drops tax increase evidence. Vote Pro if you dont want bigger taxes. He argues that Kings didnt force their subjects into failed public education and economically destructive social programs. My point exactly.


Silly response, the U.S. money supply is controlled by the federal reserve. USFG uses Kenyesian economics. Dropped historics.



Dropped and thus conceded. Did not justify how it "not related".


Dropped, thus conceded. Sure kings can be corrupt. Elected officials practically always are.

Law and Order

Dropped and therefore conceded. His attempted turn is unwarranted. Democratic governments hold much more power than monarchial ones ever did.

Vote Pro.




InThe3nd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Never in all of my large and comprehensive experience of this task we call debating have I ever been this upset. You are gonna lose now, all for no reason. I mean come on dude. Its a debate online, why run away? I'm pretty dissaponted. Dont give up man. Ever. Never, ever, EVER give up. Let me tell you, I know everything, and you should never surrender.
Ever. You need to learn this if you hope t lead a fufilling life. Trust me my friend, I know all and one day you will, I swear it, get up from this disater. I SWEAR it. Do you hear what I;m saying? DO YOU? I will ensure that this atrocity of intellectuallism never happens again. Ever. I am honestly disgusted at your forfeiture, I mean come on. But it will be ok. This isnt gonna ruin our vibrant relationship, I can promise you that. I still love you and always will (but 000ike more) but you let my heart run wild and it hurts. I miss you. So much. SO much. You have no idea. But back to debate, you're asian so you should be good at this. Apparently not. I cant beleive you would just pull a Sarah Palin and ditch your obligations. Thats so not down to earth of you. Anyway, I hope you read this. I hope to God you read it, and I hope you cry.


I'm sorry :(

Its cuz i'm @ vacation and i have no time to do this... he deserves to win guys

Hey, how about a rematch in a few days when i'm bak home?
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by InThe3nd 4 years ago
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
Just tell me whenever you're ready for a rematch.
Posted by InThe3nd 4 years ago
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
Yeah, no need to have sources if you dont need them. I'll probably respond tomorrow
Posted by InThe3nd 4 years ago
Oh, sorry about it, but I forgot to give my source: [1]

I wanted to give more, but nothing I said really adhered to the necessity of having source besides that...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded but I found Pro's last statement relatively irritating.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: He conceded