The chief complaint against monarchy I hear raised by these republicans is that under a king, few people have a say in how the nation is run. I say, why should they? Are passengers more qualified to captain an aircraft than the pilot, ensconced as he is away from the masses and in singular control of his craft? This is not a valid criticism of bad rule...this is the petulant whine of children who don't always get their way.
10 comments
The chief complaint against monarchy I hear raised by these republicans is that under a king, few people have a say in how the nation is run. I say, why should they? Are passengers more qualified to captain an aircraft than the pilot, ensconced as he is away from the masses and in singular control of his craft?
Having a meaningful say is not the same thing as being more qualified .
A ruler can, and probably should, know more than every citizen does. That’s why political candidates will (usually) cite some kind of experience that they expect to qualify them in the eyes of the voters. I’m not a lawyer, but Barack Obama is, which is one reason I would’ve voted for him. Similarly, I would want an airplane pilot that knows about aircraft.
But while I wouldn’t presume to tell a pilot how to fly a plane, I would, as a passenger, expect to have some say in where the plane will be headed and eventually land. If the flight schedule says it’s going to Pleasantville, then I would be more than a little ticked off if the pilot arbitrarily decided to head to Ba Sing Se instead. You promised to take me there; the fact that you know how to fly the plane and I don’t doesn’t give you the right to break your promise for no good reason.
Pilots with bad reputations would, hopefully, not get very much business.
What Skidie said. Being born to the previous ruler (who also became ruler by being born into the right family) does not give one any special qualification for leadership - indeed, due to their “pure” (read: inbred) bloodline and their disconnection with the populace, the monarchs are if anything less suitable to rule!
And it really takes willful ignorance roughly on the scale of the average incel to deny that modern liberal democracies massively outperform the monarchies of old.
And what makes your king, any king you choose, so eminently qualified to run a country? Did he go to a school that made him learn a lot of math and practice for hours before giving him a license, which in total could easily take 10 years for most people to be licensed to fly a jetliner? Seriously, at least learn something about your analogy, jackass.
Except people can go to flight school and in the event of an incapacitating accident, passengers with flight experience can rarely be called up to aid in landing the plane, since the physics of flight are generally the same across all makes of airplane.
There's no such thing as “king school.” What would qualify your king for the throne? What metric would we use to make sure they’re the best person for the job, and should they fall short of said metric, how do we get them out of power and the right person in?
“Congratulations on falling out the right vagina” is a terrible model upon which to build a government. Caligula had a hereditary right to rule, and he was a cackling loon. Ditto King George III. And that’s not even getting into the endless wars of succession, assassinations, intrigues, inbreeding that you seem all-fired eager to bring back.
We reduced monarchies either to the history books or the confines of a tourist curiosity for a very good reason - because giving them actual power is like turning the dystopia machine up to eleven and ripping the crank off.
According to a certain document - as a result of a slight kerfuffle with a monarch just over a couple of centuries ago - a president is only allowed two terms in office. And here, I suspect, is the reason for these quotes we've been having of late:
Even if Donald Fart wins in November: in 2024, that's it. No more 'Emprah' for them: and VD has even referred to it as 'God-Emperor' un ironically. No doubt that disease in Italy isn't the only one.
So after 20th January 2025: no more 'Emprah'.
Thus the cry for a 'Monarch'.
But here's the problem for them: if they want one, fine. So a 'War of Independence' against King George III - a monarch - was a bad thing, o OP & all your ilk?:
image
You know what you'll be admitting if you say no to the above: because of your need for a Monarch.
The phrase 'Be careful what you wish for' exists for an extremely good reason. Just ask Nige FaRAGE, OP.
Tl;dr: Even after early 2025: does Donald Fart pilot his Boeing 757 Trump Farce One : least of all Air Force One...?!
Iron Maiden lead singer Bruce Dickinson is licenced to fly the group's plane Ed Force One, OP.
Even in monarchies, rulers were expected ro hear their subjects: for exemple, the French Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom didn’t regard the relationship between the King and his free subjects (servitude having been abolished by Louis X on 1315) as contractual (two-sided) and not tributary (one-sided), meaning that the King had to follow these Fundamental Laws as a condition for him ruling, making an oath on his coronation (even reactionary Charles X had to pledge on the Charter on 1824!), such as the Indisponibility of the Crown, not asking for any contribution without the consent of his subjects, respecting the liberties of his subjects, reunited in the various communities from the Kingdom of France such as towns, clergy, fiefs and provinces, pledging to respect their liberties, their separate laws and their self-governance.
Even the most absolutist rulers were to respect these rules: for exemple Louis XIV wasn’t able to get the Parliaments to sign up the Black Codes for the mainland since no servitude existed in France (the only reason why this Code was even applied is because he had to create sovereign courts for the overseas territories, which of course ratified them; even after, every slave who came on the mainland was free, since the French land frees everyone who touch it); later, after his death, the addition of his adulterous children to the line of succession and him splitting the office of regent were held as unlawful by the Parliament. The entire reason whyu Louis XVI had to call the General Estates was because he couldn’t raise taxes otherwise.
Your ideal of monarchy only existed in the pre-1905 Imperial Russia and modern totalitarian countries.
Well, before the French Revolution, the wealthy commoners like lawyers, merchants and such were pissed at being kept out of power while the aristocracy was useless, incompetent and debt ridden. How do you propose ensuring that people who are competent at their jobs are put into power and those who aren't are removed from being considered over someone who might be lower class but otherwise well qualified? Who gets to decide who to "hire" for such positions?
"Are passengers more qualified to captain an aircraft than the pilot, ensconced as he is away from the masses and in singular control of his craft?" Yes, sometimes they would be, if they have had training and a few flying hours up - IF the pilot is only on the job because his father was a pilot too, and he has no flying hours.
And it would be even worse if the king is a totally entitled tyrant, or even clinically insane like Henry VI - which led to his throne being challenged, then the Wars of the Roses. So absolute monarchy has had its day, and constitutional monarchy is the way to go, if you have a monarchy at all.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
