Drappa
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,141
- Location
- Hampshire, UK
^Except for the fact that there is a marked difference between authority over children and authority over adults.
^Except for the fact that there is a marked difference between authority over children and authority over adults.
Would a consitutional aristocracy make any allowance for ability, and the removal from the aristocracy of those families whose scion was deficient in ability, or would that come under the category of "whim"? And who would decide on such matters? Are we basically talking here about a return to Britain before the extension of voting rights to pesky commoners?
This, in fact, was exactly what pissed off so many colonial era Americans when they considered their "rightful rulers" in Great Britain …
William Stratford, it's difficult to respond to your post when you continually add to it & change it's content.
However, I doubt that a modern citizenship will put up with aristocracy much longer because it simply doesn't make sense thatbeing born into a role equates to a great sense of duty and responsibility.
Lastly, the parental authority is already partially capped by the state, which I think is a good thing. If you abuse your children, starve them or refuse to educate them the state already interferes. In some cases not enough. Children are not always better off with their parents simply because they were born to them.
Although there is no 'perfect' approach, a Constitutional Republic is superior to a democracy, and a Constitutional Aristocracy is superior to a Constitutional Republic, as both offer the stability of a constitution being favoured over voter whim but with the Constitutional Aristocracy offering greater protection than does the Republic (as the republic is still staffed by people driven by ambition, whilst the aristocracy is staffed by people who's position is independent of ambition). The point being to give the greatest stability and protection against arbitrary rule (whether by the mob or an oligarchy) whilst still being open to question and alteration (just not on anything remotely resembling whim).
Ok then Loungers, how do we feel about a system of government where any form of democracy is done away with & our ruler is decided purely on birthright?
Any takers?
Yet I would argue that there is no reason there should be a default setting of trust for aristocracy
and that it isn't at all akin to trusting that parents love their children and have their best interests at heart. How would a head of state who was born into this responsibility possibly develop such a sense of duty and essentially love just because it is expected? How many rulers have actually cared for the ruled in this fashion? And does this also mean that the ruled are therefore seen as immature, because they have to be looked after? The reason children require parenting is due to them lacking life experience, skills and means to make sensible decisions that ensure their safety. Some people may believe that this is the case of most of the voting public (or indeed non-white r non-Christian countries), but I disagree.
Ultimately, I don't disagree with you that democracy in its current form isn't the best system we can come up with. Particularly those democracies that rely on two main parties and the voters to decide on Tweedle dee or Tweedle dum.
Deliberative democracy would require all capable citizens to take the time to regularly participate, but that seems unlikely at the moment.
I just have to jump in here and say that a constitutional aristocracy is a fictitious entity, much like unicorns and mermaids. The arbitrary nature of aristocracy guarantees corruption, excess, and disregard for the rights of individuals and for the rule of law itself. History proves me right here.
Democracy and Rule of Law go hand in hand, which is why the USA was forged the way it was. That's not jingoism either, since I'm a proud Canadian. I just have a realistic appreciation of my government system vs that of the USA (which I feel is superior in many ways). I would also add that comparing the parent/child relationship with the "ruler"/citizen relationship is totally illegitmate. You're comparing apples to oranges.
As Churchill said,"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
A healthier society is one which inherits, holding in trust and preserving, rather than one which consumes. Inherits values, inherits traditions, inherits customs, inherits property, inherits relationships and inherits positions in society. Passing on what was passed on as part of a coherent, stable and cohesive history, changing only slowly and organically over the decades and centuries.
Its polar opposite is a society that, upon receiving inheritance, either discards it or liquidates it. The result being a society where the new is always demanded, the old is treated with disdain, and where consequently coherence and cohesiveness, both within and across the generations, is lost beneath the feet of the mob as they stampede forward into the future. Ambition, appetite and consumption being their core.
This latter is not the same as social protest against abuse, looking to tweak a system that (as with all systems) has its faults, but rather is the route of humankind once they have been conned into discarding their roots and substance.....although the demagogues would have you think differently....
Hence how democracy and consumerism are together at the very heart of the decline in standards today. Their nature is to discard the past, to throw away tradition, coherence, stability and cohesion....all the while claiming to bring people together. Yes, brought together in a feeding frenzy.
.
Indeed, we've never had a true constitutional aristocracy. Aristocracy guarantees corruption when not bound by a constitution, but when bound by one it creates gentlemen where service is not a reward to be sought but a responsibility that is both inescapable AND bound against arbitrary power.
I think you are idealising that system quite a bit. Every society that was bound by tradition, inherited relationships, properties and social positions has failed sooner or later and was, to a large extent, neglectful and cruel to the majority of its populace. If such a system was agreed, who would write the constitution and by what standards? The system you describes does sound like a Utopia inhabited by Snow White and Cinderella. In other words, kindly and responsible rulers who love the masses.
I also believe you are equating democracy with free-market economy and capitalism. Democracy in it's true form has nothing to do with consumerism. Early forms of democracy didn't encourage consumerism, so I am not sure why you link the two.
So, do you have any empirical evidence to back that up with? Or even a working definition of what is meant by "constitutional aristocracy" and how that differs from any other form of oligarchy?
By definition there is no empirical evidence for a constitutional aristocracy. Instead I am arguing from principle and have repeated said how it differs from oligarchy.
Aha, so it's based on nothing but your own theorising?
Further, I haven't seen anything that would distinguish your "constitutional aristocracy" from any other "constitutional oligarchy" in your posts save the word "aristocracy" which frankly does nothing to recommend it in my eyes.
How would you explain the connection between democracy and the market, because I am not sure I follow your reasoning? Are you supposing that democracy, being a toolof the many to help govern themselves, is bound to be faulty because people are naturally greedy and democracy allows them to satiate their greed? Social change and consumption don't clearlygo together at all. And if you assume that democracy is less stable because it allows greed to take over, how is a system which ensures hereditary property ownership and hereditary social positions preferable? That would not only prevent social change, however slow, but continue to keep the poor poor and the rich rich simply because they were born into it. How does that fix the current problems?