The Instigator
Pro (for)
20 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Monarchy and Democracy III

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,071 times Debate No: 21513
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)




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.

Also, I have no idea why but on my last two debates on this subject my opponents attempted to show an elective monarchy to be a democracy. Advancing an argument of this nature will be an automatic forfeit of the debate. For clarification on an elective monarchy, see:


well please post your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


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.


all of the points mentioned by my opponent are valid for good monarch. but for bad monarch like nero, caligula, richard the third etc. these points will go reverse or against the interest of the people.

the inherent benefit of democracy is that democracy provides for an opportunity to the people to throw out bad rulers through votes.monerchy did not give it to the people. in this way only good rulers will rule in democracy while in monerchy both good and bad ruler will rule.

so democracy is better than monerchy.
Debate Round No. 2


My Opponent concedes to every argument I make, only stating that they do not apply to bad monarchs, such as "nero, caligula, richard the third". First, he hasn't warranted this; quite a few of the advantages of a monarchial system arise from self interest and he hasn't explained to you how a bad Monarch won't act in self interest. Secondly, that he can only name 3 supposed bad rulers after millenia of Monarchial rule and literally thousands of Monarchs is telling. I can name more bad Presidents in the past century in the U.S. alone (Woodrow Wilson, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, & Jimmy Carter to name a few).

His "case" for Democracy rests on one argument, that: " democracy provides for an opportunity to the people to throw out bad rulers through votes." This is false, because voting out bad rulers in a Democracy only replaces them with other bad ones. As Hoppe writes[1]:

"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 becomeincreasingly bad and dangerous individuals."

Thus, Democratic rulers are more threatening than Monrchial ones. He has dropped my entire case, I've already won the round.


1. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "On Monarchy, Democracy, and the Idea of Natural Order." Democracy: The God That Failed : The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order.. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2004.USA. 87-88 Print.


my opponent wants to know how his points do not apply to bad monarch. first we must understand the difference between good monarch and bad ones.

the fundamental difference is that good monarch take care of his men. he will do all those things for the benefit of his people. bad monarch will do the same thing for his own interest and not for the benefit of his people.

i am going to show how my opponent's point won't apply to bad monarchs :


Good monarch

Bad monarch


Will do when attacked by enemy

Will do when he needs money himself


Do to stop war

Do that for own interest.


Will not harm the economy at all.

Will destroy the economy yet he will be rich. e.g. through wars, taxes etc.


Will reduce tax

Will impose high tax


Will keep productive people

Will keep unproductive people who praise him.






Inheriting the kingdom does not mean no corruption. King can do corruption in many ways since he has the most power.

so you see, that in monarchy too, there may be all kind of corruption if the monarch is bad. actually it depends on the nature and quality of ruler that how the people are taken care of. consider the presidency of abraham lincoln, george washington, winston churchill, they took good care of their own people.

democrasy has the inherent opportunity to throw out bad rulers. it does not mean that they are relaced by bad people again. in democrasy anybody can run for presidency. a good people can also run for presidency. there is a possibility. this possibility is absent in monerchy.

also in democrasy there is the facility of impeachment. a president can be impeached during his term. this facility is absent in monerchy.

democrasy is like that house which has many doors to escape. monerchy is like the house which has only one door to escape.

i think therefore, democrasy is better than monerchy.

Debate Round No. 3


This round will be short, bcause there really isn't much to say.

Con has dropped literally all of my arguments, only trying to refute them by saying that they dont hold for a bad monarch. Yet he's never explained why, nor responded to my attacks about how he's only named a handful of bad monarchs anyway.

It's strange that he says:

"democrasy has the inherent opportunity to throw out bad rulers. it does not mean that they are relaced by bad people again"

Yet makes no response to the Hoppe card proving that only bad men rise to power in democracy.

Con brings up impeachment, but he's not really argued this. Politicians very rarely get impeached, and politicians themselves make laws so this isn't really a risk.

Therefore, I have clearly won bcause my opponent has conceded to it all.


my opponent don't understand any of my point.

all of his points don't hold good for bad monarch. why? because unlike good monarch, bad monarch are selfish, greedy by nature. why their nature is so? i don't know.

clinton was impeached because of monica. so impeachment machinary can work well. lawmakers cannot stop it.

one last virtue of democrasy is its freedom of speech and expression which media and people use often.monarchy doesn't have such freedom.

in a democrasy one can criticize the ruler and still get going but in a monerchy the consequence of such act will be death or jail.

so i think democrasy is better than monerchy.

vote me.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
Fail con is fail.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
Yeah, sure
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
thett, if you give me a few days (and message me so I remember) I will be happy to give you a debate on this.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Yeah, initial thought held to be true. xxx2 stood no chance.

Obviously I voted pro mainly off of the con's nonresponsive arguments for the most part. Pro had a pretty effective case, but con just didn't try to refute any of it, only bringing up a point of how bad monarchs are different from good monarchs. But even THAT pro refuted, and the evidence he used to warrant his refutation wasn't ever rebuked. So I literally don't have anywhere I can vote con off of, even if I wanted to.

Sources go to pro, since con didn't provide any. S/G go to pro, obviously. If you read the round, you'll understand.

Besides that, easy vote was easy.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
From what I've read so far, thett has xxx2 completely raped. I need to read the rest of the rounds, but it looks like a one-sided debate.
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago

Link to pdf file with entire book(18 MB) if anyones interested.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
God damn it.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
I've honestly never searched for it, I know that the introduction is online but idk about anything else :/

And once you get around a third of the way through chapter one it becomes a very good read, before that..meh
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Is there a pdf file of the book you mentioned available for download anywhere? Sounds like an interesting read.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
3.14158 lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has upheld his BoP, and Con failed to adequately respond to many of Pro's points. Con's own case was also underdeveloped, and spelling errors were quite common in comparison to Pro.
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro totally out-classed Con, though I personally agree with Con (I live under the oppressive yoke of a monarchy in a divisive, class-ridden society).
Vote Placed by darkkermit 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: CON pretty much wasted a good opportunity for a good debate and didn't even contend any arguments or make new arguments
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.