The Instigator
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points

Monarchy and Democracy IV

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,737 times Debate No: 22946
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

"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 representatives of the people, or they are made directly by the people or representatives of 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 Parliament, 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." (previous debates)

In this debate, elective monarchies, constitutional monarchies such as the UK , noble republics and similar government forms shall be disregarded.

This debate is long overdue, so I thought I would suggest it now. The first arguments may be directly copied and pasted from previous debates by the same user. Plagiarism from the self is allowed, all other plagiarisms must be cited, otherwise the debate results in a concession. As the word limit is constrictive, citing one's own work outside the site is allowed.

With this in mind, I look forwards to an interesting debate, should my opponent accept. Also, my opponent should present his argument first, in round 1.
thett3

Pro

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]. The legitimacy of monarchs rests on law and order.

Vote Pro.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

As per the penultimate paragraph, I am going to cite my argument off-site. This is directly responding to my opponent's argument, however I could not complete it within the 8000 character limit, and a full debate on democracy can only be successful outside the character limit. Without further ado, the link is here:

http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk...

Sources found inside. Thank you.
thett3

Pro

Argument here: https://docs.google.com...;

It's getting long...
Debate Round No. 2
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

http://debateorg.blogspot.co.uk...

My response is there. It was enjoyable to write, although it took ages to do so.
thett3

Pro

The monsterous size of this debate leads me to the conclusion that no one will actually read it all to assess the arguments. With that in mind, I respectfully ask for a tie and challenge my opponent to a normal sized debate over the same topic.

Also, to my opponent:
Debate Round No. 3
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Accepted.
thett3

Pro

Sorry about that
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
I read it... the parts whose links weren't broken, anyways.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
thett, count the number of civilian deaths in wars between 2 absolute monarchies. Then compare that to the number of civilian deaths in wars between 2 democracies. The data is clear. At most, there are around 20 dyadic democratic wars. Compare that to the number of monarchy wars within any given century until around the 20th century then you have many more civilian deaths.

Also, look at the democratic attempts to broker peace. The UN, EU, and many other organisations have attempted to broker a worldwide peace. In contrast, the monarchies relied on the Holy See, and even then it was an extreme failure on huge grounds. How many times has a democratically appointed nation been invaded in the 21st century by other nations?
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
LMFAOooOoooOO. You think that we live in the most peaceful and free world now? Yikes /:
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
We are living the period of democracy. The most peaceful and free world. The rights of person expanded and their happiness became one of important criteria to evaluate the countries.

Unarguable it is. Now in our period, the purpose of the country must be about the wealth of the citizens not the country itself.

and this easily concludes that monarchy never can be even possible to regain the popularity as the countries can choose as the operation system.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Coming soon..........

Monarchy & Democracy 5 and the Order of the Phoenix.....
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
Are you guys going to do this debate again? I was looking forward to this one, but I guess it was getting too long.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
" A monarch faces death or at the very least the destruction of their private property if they anger the people"

What would a monarch have to do, and why would this not happen to a democratic leader? Also, seeing as a monarch has the power of an army at his fingertips and a democratic leader may have a guard appointed to him with luck...In fact, more democratic leaders have been executed than monarchs in the western world, I'd say.

And I remember you saying you'd prefer a democracy. I have problems with the facts that Hoppes put forth in his book, which is why I disagree with him. I do not care for his presentation of them either, because they focus less on inherent characteristics and more on predicated values.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
I might it depends /:

And to your question yes, because the worst a democratic ruler faces is impeachment. A monarch faces death or at the very least the destruction of their private property if they anger the people

And in case you're wondering, I would rather live in a democracy, I just find hoppes thesis to be fascinating
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
thett3, the problem with this debate is that, for it to be representative of the arguments, it needs more than 3 days per statement anyway. If you'd be willing to do this over a larger period of time, then would you be more willing to finish?

Also, an informed democracy would inherently result in less civilian casualties because of a) The Media and b) Accountability. The media would scrutinise and sensationalise any action. If you remember when the American soldier pissed on the body of an afghan, the media world had a field day, and it's something that it is easy to defame the responsible figureheads, and stop the soldiers being unfairly treated. If it were civilians, it becomes a field day for the next few weeks, by fact of precedence. An absolute monarch can simply censor it out of the news, and therefore does not have to be accountable.

Speaking of accountability, do you still suggest that a monarch is more accountable than a democratically elected leader? If so, can you state why?

Also, if you want to debate any of the specific clash points (i.e. inherent traits), then I would be willing and happy to do one of them in the time period.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
But just curious, you don't honestly believe that democracies are less likely to slaughter enemy civilians in war time do you?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Stephen_Hawkinsthett3Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: counter VB
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Stephen_Hawkinsthett3Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, gonna vb this
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Stephen_Hawkinsthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie granted
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Stephen_Hawkinsthett3Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ...lol