The Instigator
Ihsieman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

We Should institute a Holy Roman Empire system of governence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2021 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 271 times Debate No: 127774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Ihsieman

Pro

I have already proposed this debate, But the accepter forfeited.

With the great division in this country, I think the greatest is not between race, Gender, Religion (or lack of thereof), Abortion, And all the like, But between state and government, What is the superior level of governance, The state or the Feds? We have been unable to reach a conclusion, And so I propose instituting a Holy Roman Empire (HRE) style of governance in the US, This isn"t hard, As many things are similar, The HRE had an electoral college, That elected the emperor for example.

However, The upset to this plan is that the HRE has a generally conservative governance, But people forget that while the HRE presented itself as a untied force against outsiders, Within it was a grad game. Each province had it"s own king, Not directly controlled by the emperor, And they would often from alliances and start wars with others, Within the empire. This way, While the US is united to outsiders, It can remain divided, And like mined peoples can form separate states without the dividing worry of Federal intervention dictating law for the whole country.

In this way political division will become less, As you are not so warry of the other side taking your rights away. Also I highly doubt anyone will start a war, Considering every state can develop it's own military, And who knows what happens to the nuclear arsenal.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

The interbreeding of Hapsburg dynasty rule across centuries in an increasingly insolvent and disunified cluster of kingdoms and territories is perhaps not the best model for the USA to emulate. The Holy Roman Empire had many problems inherent to its political structure. If you can expound however on why an elective monarchy ought to replace the plutocratic democracy of the current USA and how other aspects of a HRE style of governance could be implemented in the USA, I might be clearer on why you think the USA has something to learn from the HRE.

Some more recent parallels can be drawn between having the leader of one place also having responsibility in ruling a larger empire (the Emperor ruling his country but also guiding and instructing the leaders of those under his authority). You might think of the imperial presidency (particular in the latter half of the 20th century) where it was the president who occupied a similar position. You might think of the EU and how the leaders of that organization influence the governance and regulations of each nation state. However you might also latch on to the word 'empire' negatively. You can think of the oppression of the USSR stifling national identities and autonomy in the eastern bloc for its own benefit. Or you could think of the colonial powers in Europe who oppressed and exploited so many different countries for its own wealth (particularly in South Asia and Africa).

US federal law does not completely control state law and operations; there are varying laws across all the states. So under the current US system there is no need to worry that the President will become a dictator; the system of government is designed to limit the power of all individuals within it. There is also no need to worry about 'your rights being taken away' by federal law firstly because: A) the federal judiciary are limited in what decisions they can make by existing laws and the constitution and B) rights only come about through political systems which protect and maintain them. 'Your' rights are not yours by virtue of your birth. They have been constructed and developed through the operations of government and reinforced internationally. I don't really understand why you don't think the USA is not unified in its political organization anyway. Although public opinion may be divided and atomized - all government actions are done on behalf of Team USA with the responsibility for decisions distributed across states and the varying structures of government. It is only that more power - even though it is limited - is given to the workings of federal government.
Debate Round No. 1
Ihsieman

Pro

An elective monarchy would be much more effective for the USA than the current system, Although they have many similarities, There have been many examples of such throughout many successful empires, Macedon, Rome, Poland, The Dutch, Etc. Although the process requires a member of the Hasburgs, Such a practice is not always bad. Although the family model of the Hasburgs is bad. Family structure isn't part of this debate. A strong dynasty has worked in some cases, Macedon (King philip and Alexander the Great), Rome (Caesar and Augustus, Then Tiberius), Etc, Most of these lines end with the Death of a son, But today's modern medicine can avoid that. However the majority of institutions in the HRE became unimportant through time, As power moved from the throne to the provinces. And while the there would be certain laws that apply to all, The second amendment would probably be kept if the Federal government needs a army in time of war.

The Ruler of the HRE was concerned with the empire as a whole, But much of it was beyond his reach. It could be described similar to being a Godfather, To keep power he had to make sure that not all of the provinces revolted at once. He had to play everyone. However unlike the EU, Non of these provinces where full fledged countries. They appeared so, But were often dependent on the power of the HRE for existence. As without it, They probably would be conquered. The word empire can mean many things, And the title of the USA would not change with the shift in policy.

I am not worried about the power of the president turning into the power of the dictator, But I am about states rights. Everything in the constitution can be negated. Any amendment overturned, This is bad because all it takes is one election for either side to change everything. The USA is not politically polarized, The USA is in a state of division between those who would withdraw, And those who would lash out, Both have their merits, But not one can exist with out the other. Long time ago the debate was about how to make the USA better. Now it is about what the USA is, A superpower sitting on the sidelines, Or a benevolent force, That intervenes, And can be malevolent when it needs to be. There cannot be a united team USA because the definition of Team USA itself is debated, Not what's better for it. Whether it should wait or move is not for he betterment of the USA, It is for the definition of the USA, All powers are determined by their appearance to the world. The USA has remined on the sidelines for most of it's history until WW2 when it formed Nato, Even in WW1, It had to intervene, Sideline mean waiting for a call, Not never playing. But even nato never ran this deep, Even with nato the USA remained focused on itself. But now with everything so good. Do we really need to invest n ourselves at all? That is the question.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

1) The Holy Roman Empire
Hereditary monarchy is generally quite bad when it has political power. It concentrates that power into one family who have an interest in maintaining their family interests above the interests of the entire country or empire (from high taxation to build luxury palaces to fragrant nepotism instead of meritocracy and allowing the most able to rise). In a hereditary monarchy each heir to the throne may not be fit to rule. They could be dumb and interbred and completely different in temperament from their predecessor aiming the country or empire in a completely different direction. For example Henry VII concentrated on cautious economics and taxation (building the treasury) whereas his son Henry VIII spent all this money and got England into huge war debts only a few years later. So why exactly then are you defending the hereditary monarchy of the Hapsburgs over the Holy Roman Empire? 'Oh yay! Politics for the interests of one family intervening into the local governance of each territory under its authority for their own purposes! '

Question:
What are the differences between provinces (not nations) being ruled by an emperor and the US States being ruled by an emperor (which is what you are proposing)?

2) The USA
" all it takes is one election for either side to change everything"
This is untrue. Whereas with a hereditary monarchy the entire political structure of state and its goals historically often has shifted according to the idiosyncrasies of the king or queen (for example Henry VII->Henry VIII) US democracy limits the individual power of every person involved in government. So no. The US Constitution can not be repealed if one person can be elected rather than another. Amendments to the constitution have to go through Congress and win the majority of votes and then be ratified by the overwhelming majority of states. The structure of US government in fact is designed to impede any proposals for major structural changes. Any major changes are likely to be unpopular with the electorate - opinions and ideas across countries transforming only very slowly - so any self-interested elected official is unlikely to side with them if they want to be re-elected and try to revise and acutely improve the operations of government. As your anxiety about the power of the US federal government seems to me misplaced and you are not worried about a dictatorship-style presidency - I do not understand what justifies the switch from democracy to elective monarchy as you suggest. Moving to the latter does not solve any of the problems presented simply because the problems presented do not exist as least insofar as the political structure of the US goes.

" The USA has remained on the sidelines for most of it's history until WW2 when it formed Nato"
Also untrue. The League of Nations was a precursor to NATO and set up by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1920. Whilst it is true that the US became more interventionist in foreign policy after WW2 it was not on the sidelines of global history before 1941. Its participation in the slave trade had some hugely significant global significance as did its global economic role after industrialization (especially when the Great Depression in the US impoverished the whole of Europe). Just to give two examples.

"the definition of Team USA itself is debated"
No it is not? Can you provide any examples where the unity of the United States of America is called into question?
Debate Round No. 2
Ihsieman

Pro

1. I never proposed a HRE style system of monarchy, In which one family controls everything, However such a system has worked in the past, I proposed a HRE monarch.

Answer:
The USA will be ruled by the HRE style emperor, Not an emperor, Like the French emperor, Or the Czar, Etc. Such a emperor was dependent on the consent of the provinces to make major decisions, And has little power on it's own.

2)
The constitution is by no means a static object, And although the original ten amendments are hard to remove, It can be done, As well as circumvented. Prohibition for example was repealed, Although it needed a two thirds, That can be changed as well. You see often bills are made with thousands of pages, With a little note saying something outrageous, Hoping the opponent will miss it. This has been done on a global scale as well, Like with Hong Kong. Certain ideas have moved like wild fire across the USA many times, Prohibition for example, Also MAGA, Or America first, Rose up in a year, CRT also spread fast, However these have been very controversial, But certain things, Most of pride, Is something most people are united on. I am worried about the increasing power of the Fed, And the political division in the USA is also worrying, And if it progresses at this rate, A great political divide will form, Such as the one preceding the civil war.

League of nations is the most unknown important pact in history, Nobody cares about the league, It was important but clearly didn't leave a mark on the world, As it is not remembered, I'm surprised you know about it.

Right now, There are three parties, The ultra right, The ultra left, And the people who don't care, The ultra sides would love to cede from the country if the other controls the government, (CHAZ, Jan6th, Though that is debated) Texas considered ceding for a while. And many of the Ultra left threatened to move to Canada if trump won.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

1)
"I never proposed a HRE style system of monarchy [. . . ] I proposed a HRE monarch. "
You did propose the former and not the latter (unless you want Francis II to come back from the dead and lead the USA)?

I'm not exactly sure on the details which makes an elected President limited in their powers by law and Congress and the Senate and an Emperor limited in their power by territorial leaders and the Catholic Church so radically different. In HRE the elective monarchy wasn't only for a few years and the electorate wasn't the public of all the different nations. The HRE would also often lapse into hereditary monarchy and dynasties. You have not yet specified what would make the proposed Emperor so different from the contemporary political position of US President in your responses. This seems key in making your argument.

I am not sure you realize how powerful the Holy Roman Emperor actually was. From the 10th-15th centuries being the Holy Roman Emperor was probably the most powerful global position any one individual could be in. It's not like the Emperor was a mostly symbolic role (like the contemporary British monarchy for instance) but they had very real political significance and power over their Empire. What powers would a US HRE-style Emperor have? What would they do?

2)
Probabilities are important. The US Constitution and the structure of political government are incredibly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and - when when they do change - this will probably be good. It will mean that the situation North America finds itself in means that parts of the Constitution and of current systems of government are no longer relevant. It cannot happen - however - that in a course of a decade the entire political structure of US government can change because some crazy politicians are elected in.

"Certain ideas have moved like wild fire across the USA many times"

Take prohibition. It didn't just happen suddenly as you suggested. It was part of a (religious) historical tradition which goes back centuries (from the Puritans to Catholics and Evangelicals) which manifested in the 18th century in the temperance movement in Britain and the USA and continued to develop until the Volstead Act went through in the early 20th century and the sale of alcohol was made illegal in the States. Not really a wildfire or sudden great change then. A bit like the Civil Rights movement is took centuries of work and campaigning before any results were seen in US legislature.

The "League of nations is the most unknown important pact in history, Nobody cares about the league, It was important but clearly didn't leave a mark on the world, As it is not remembered, I'm surprised you know about it. "
Lol okay. Let's just forget about it then. It was an important part of history (a condition of peace after WW1 and a prototype of many of the contemporary international organizations) but whatever.

"Right now, There are three parties, The ultra right, The ultra left, And the people who don't care, "
Again? There are two parties: the Democrats and Republicans. Politically there is the extreme right and the moderate right then the centrists and the moderate left and extreme left. Disenfranchised or non-politically involved individuals also are important to consider. I would agree that the US like much of the western world is currently very divided in ideas and politics. I wouldn't go as far as to take it all so seriously. Many leftists may have threatened to move to Canada if Trump won (not sure who they were 'threatening'). This was just a way of voicing their strong dislike and contempt of Trump. I doubt many actually moved to Canada when he did become President in 2017.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
Round 3
True, I suppose the title of the debate is Holy Roman System of Government, Not
Holy Roman System of Government and Monarch.
Holy Roman System of Government 'kind of implies it though.
I suppose something I see as a flaw in Pro's arguments, Is the lack of definition, Or clarification on what he was, Is debating. Such is best made clear in round one, Rather than amended as debate goes on.
. . .
Con notes vagaries in Pro's proposal, Such as the power of the USA Emperor.
And I'd agree with Cons note of movements often taking time, As well as some vocalizations being of frustration, Rather than intention to move.

My Opinion
Eh, State Rights got a 'bit squashed in the Civil War, Also the advent of trains, Planes, And automobiles. People moving mixing, And so on.
I suppose if a group of people was determined enough, They 'could form a more secular community, But I'm doubtful an entire 'state of said people is likely to form.
Then again, Rhode Island is 'just an island, How hard can that many people be?
Mm, Anyway, Personally, My vote would be for Con, For noting flaws in some of Pros propositions, As well as the fact that 'exactly what Pro was proposing wasn't 'clearly defined, By how I read it.
Posted by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
Round 1
Interesting debate, As Con says, There 'is an amount of division of power between the state and federal government.
Though I 'do find flip flops of power in political policy annoying, As Pro mentions the position of president. Though it doesn't effect policy to an extreme. Nor is the president the only representative and decider of the people. Congress, Senate.

Round 2
I'm not eager myself to serve a monarchy though, I view the presidency as more a mutual partnership. And monarchy more as that of servant, Loyalty, So on.
Speaking of effectiveness though, There 'have been effective Monarchies in history.
. . .
I suppose if I was a bit of a different person, With different goals, I might see it as a worthy commitment to swear loyalty, Bond, To another as a King, Assuming they're a phenomenal leader, And 'justify that loyalty. But I'm not currently, Nor do I expect to be in the future, Unless circumstances change 'greatly. Like an apocalypse occurs, And I'm just looking for a way to survive, And following a benevolent King looks the best option.
. . .
As Con mentions, There's a bit of an issue in hereditary monarchy focusing power, Said individuals focused on maintaining power, And a difficulty in uprooting incompetent individuals 'in power.
Though this can be mitigated, Magna Carta, For example.
Though American politics change as new Americans supplant their parents in leadership, Maybe not as 'quick though, As a monarchy.
Con notes American government Checks and Balances in passing legislation.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 month ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Voltaire the famous satirist? Don't you think he was making a joke - a joke which only works as a joke because the Holy Roman Empire was Holy and Roman and an Empire? The gradual dissolution of the Roman Empire across the centuries and the waning influence of Catholicism in Europe (etc. ) did mean that the emperor gradually had less centralized power and that the HRE was losing its distictness. This doesn't mean that the HRE was not an empire? Pro hasn't specified the 'when' of the HRE either - whether the dissolute 18th century HRE or the stronger 10th century one and I would agree there is a difference.

Isn't the Separation of Powers and judiciary limiting the powers of federal government sufficient? (There are clear and enforced boundaries of power in US law? ) Decentralization - local empowerment - is often reactionary against a disconnected and bureaucratic centralized control. I get the general sentiment: the feds suck! (Even if I'm not fully convinced individual state governments would do much better). But new problems emerge from having too many regional differences in law (e. G. All the 5gal flush toilet makers and market rushing to one state in which they are legal for commercial transactions - other states wanting to get in on this market and so legalising the toilets despite the reasons they were banned or else having to invest in solutions to ensure that these toilets aren't illegally transported across states. . . Etc).
Posted by steveja 1 month ago
steveja
On the main thesis, Voltaire argues that HRE was "neither holy, Nor Roman, Nor an empire". So the thesis REQUIRES serious definitions to avoid the "slippery opponent" fallacy. We might all agree that the HRE's S. German base was a useful, And pragmatic wrt Euro social/econ development; but to argue that HRE represents any coherent policy toward subsidiary states is a farce that ignores it's incoherent highly variable 1000yr history.

I *want* a more decentralized form of decision-making & government (like late HRE), But i also want CLEAR, ENFORCEABLE limitation of central powers - unlike any HRE schema. "Subsidiarity"(a key concept in Swiss law) should be eve more critical in a huge & diverse nation like USA. Sadly Madison (genuinely brilliant) missed this.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 month ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Don't you think calling Obama, Trump and Biden dictators is insulting to all those who have or have had to live under the oppression of real dictatorships? (For one the democratic succession of power meant that even Trump had to go! ) They also have to fight to get things pushed through Congress and the legilative side of government (e. G. Obama and health care) and ensure that their acts and confined within the law.

My hit back against your examples is that you seem to think laws as intruding against individuals (perhaps committed to American individualism). It could easily be that if there were no federal government states could pass similar laws and you would have the umbridge.
Posted by steveja 1 month ago
steveja
>>> US federal law does not completely control state law and operations; there are varying laws across all the states. So under the current US system there is no need to worry that the President will become a dictator; the system of government is designed to limit the power of all individuals within it.

Although that is true that iin literal reading of the Constitution; it is not regularly observed - so the conclusion is false.

The. FedGov has very limited powers - on paper. The Art1sect8 of the constitution lays out all the powers of taxation - which is almost (except excises, And later income taxes, Raising armies, . . . ) the only forcible power. Yet today I can't buy a 5gal flush toilet, Nor move some logs from a drainage ditch (that create a magically protected wetland), Nor feed grow wheat to feed my own cattle on the same intra-state property (Wickard v. Filburn)- without Federal Regulation/intrusion.

NO! FegGov has - ON PAPER - limited power, But in reality the FedGov is overwhelming, I think there are two aspects to the PROBLEM. 1/ When 2 branches of FedGov collude - then checks&balances fail. 2/ Congress has regularly ceded its power to the executive branch. [Example: Nixon formed the EPA in a reasonable/wrongheaded attempt to address pollution problems. Today the EPA makes unreasonable and intrusive impositions on individuals based on silly reasoning]. In the case of the EPA a *better* solution would be to have a *legislative branch* department that would have it's policies NEGOTIATED and not subject to a Dictator. A *best* solution would be to allow lawsuits against negative externalities and keep Legislature & Executive OUT of the issue.

>>>there is no need to worry that the President will become a dictator;
Denial is not a river in Egypt. We HAVE dictators like Obama, Trump, Biden ruling by executive order every day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 1 month ago
Leaning
IhsiemanTheUnexaminedLifeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources equal as not used that I saw, conduct equal both polite, spelling grammar understandable by both, my votes for Con as he consistently made points in flaws of Pros proposal, as well as 'what Pro was proposing being a bit unstated, seemed to me. Before and After I'm neutral. . No After I'm more Con, due to my liking of political habit.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.