Post: #1

Preamble
It has been almost a month since I published my first (and until now only) ''datasheet''. For this reason, I have decided to write this opening post and to start this thread in order to contribute to the forum and foment a potentially-beneficial debate. To those who are knowledgeable on the subject, I intend to speak of Florentine classical republicanism not the Weimar Republic in post-First World War Germany or anything remotely near the twentieth century for that matter.

The Thread's Point
For a few years now I have considered myself a classical republican and a monarchist. While you may think these are exact opposites they are not; modern republicanism (i.e. what is referred to as republicanism everywhere except perhaps the United States where the term is associated with the Republican Party and its adherants) is very different from classical republicanism (which is also called civic humanism although some academics do not like the term). Modern republicanism is primarily concerned with establishing an equitable society where the government's power derives from the people (popular sovereignty) while classical republicanism places an emphasis on the establishment of a mixed government and the avoidance of tyranny. As modern republicanism is not the subject of this thread I will go onto discussing the mixed government and the avoidance of tyranny.

Now, what is a mixed government? A mixed government (also known as a mixed constitution) is the combination of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements into the government. Aristotle called for its use to prevent the chaos that was sure to ensue if only one method of government were used. I believe it to be the nearest possible to Plato's ideal form of government by which the ''best'' govern and the realistic equivalent of Nietzsche's Superman that does not involve a regeneration of humanity. In order to prevent any misunderstandings and misinterpretations of my definition I will quote Machievelli himself who wrote the following in the second chapter of the first book of his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. Anything written inside square brackets has been added by me.

Niccolò Machiavelli Wrote:In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince [monarch], a nobility [aristocracy], and the power of the people [democracy], then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check.

While it would be preferable to form an aristocracy of merit (a meritocracy) I do not see a method to make this entirely free of corruption nor do I think there is a way to objectively examine would-be members of the aristocracy. For this reason, the best we could do for the benefit of our res publica would be to force the hereditary nobility/aristocracy to educate their children to highest level possible. The same goes for the monarchy although their position would be very similar to that of present European constitutional monarchies which have some reserve powers to prevent over-ambitious politicians from permanently harming the nation-state but are prevented from using these powers on a day-to-day basis. Through the use of these methods the democratic sector of the government would not be all-powerful nor would the aristocracy. Finally, the monarchy would act as a force with reserve power capable of uniting everyone. Tyranny (both of the majority and minority) would be avoided.

So? What are your thoughts on this concept? What would you change to my evil master plan to dominate humanity?

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #2

(02-19-2015 02:46 AM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  Preamble
It has been almost a month since I published my first (and until now only) ''datasheet''. For this reason, I have decided to write this opening post and to start this thread in order to contribute to the forum and foment a potentially-beneficial debate. To those who are knowledgeable on the subject, I intend to speak of Florentine classical republicanism not the Weimar Republic in post-First World War Germany or anything remotely near the twentieth century for that matter.

The Thread's Point
For a few years now I have considered myself a classical republican and a monarchist. While you may think these are exact opposites they are not; modern republicanism (i.e. what is referred to as republicanism everywhere except perhaps the United States where the term is associated with the Republican Party and its adherants) is very different from classical republicanism (which is also called civic humanism although some academics do not like the term). Modern republicanism is primarily concerned with establishing an equitable society where the government's power derives from the people (popular sovereignty) while classical republicanism places an emphasis on the establishment of a mixed government and the avoidance of tyranny. As modern republicanism is not the subject of this thread I will go onto discussing the mixed government and the avoidance of tyranny.

Now, what is a mixed government? A mixed government (also known as a mixed constitution) is the combination of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements into the government. Aristotle called for its use to prevent the chaos that was sure to ensue if only one method of government were used. I believe it to be the nearest possible to Plato's ideal form of government by which the ''best'' govern and the realistic equivalent of Nietzsche's Superman that does not involve a regeneration of humanity. In order to prevent any misunderstandings and misinterpretations of my definition I will quote Machievelli himself who wrote the following in the second chapter of the first book of his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. Anything written inside square brackets has been added by me.

Niccolò Machiavelli Wrote:In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince [monarch], a nobility [aristocracy], and the power of the people [democracy], then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check.

While it would be preferable to form an aristocracy of merit (a meritocracy) I do not see a method to make this entirely free of corruption nor do I think there is a way to objectively examine would-be members of the aristocracy. For this reason, the best we could do for the benefit of our res publica would be to force the hereditary nobility/aristocracy to educate their children to highest level possible. The same goes for the monarchy although their position would be very similar to that of present European constitutional monarchies which have some reserve powers to prevent over-ambitious politicians from permanently harming the nation-state but are prevented from using these powers on a day-to-day basis. Through the use of these methods the democratic sector of the government would not be all-powerful nor would the aristocracy. Finally, the monarchy would act as a force with reserve power capable of uniting everyone. Tyranny (both of the majority and minority) would be avoided.

So? What are your thoughts on this concept? What would you change to my evil master plan to dominate humanity?

My initial thought is that what you describe looks a lot like what we already have in the UK. If my understanding is correct, I'd place myself firmly in the dislike camp. The checks and balances you describe sound nice on a theoretical level, but practically vulnerable to the same abuses and shortcomings we already see in the UK. A motivated minority that forms the voting majority, prioritising short term fiscal gain ahead of long term national/posterity good and a limited window of acceptable political discourse largely dictated by the agenda of the incumbent party, the media, and their disproportionately vocal electorate.

In many ways, the system this creates is less just even than tyranny. At least in an out and out tyranny, you theoretically have the support of an actual majority to oppress the sizable minority. The current system is far more invidious, and relies on the veneer of respectability given to it by the supposed checks and balances, eg a monarch who can remove heads of state. It is under this guise of incorruptibility that so much damage is done.

Post: #3

^
This is not similar to the UK's current system. In the UK we have an insignificant House of Lords where hereditary peers no longer sit; it is basically an extension of the House of Commons owing to the fact that they (the ruling party in the Commons) decide who to put on the honours list they'll give the Queen. What I'm proposing is a system where the monarchy works in the same way it does in the UK while the House of Commons and the House of Lords are made roughly equal in power. Finally, a new selection system needs to be developed so that the House of Lords becomes a meritocratic chamber of Parliament; I haven't had any ideas on the subject and that's why I suggested we make it hereditary and in some way force the hereditary peers to educate their children to the highest degree possible. In that way, the demands of the population are considered both by the politicians who have an active interest in pleasing the populace (the MPs in the Commons) and those who are more reasonable and have no need to please the electorate for they are already wealthy and permanently in their position in the government (the hereditary peers).

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #4

The Parliament Acts in the UK should be repealed, as should all the subsequent laws regarding peers. That would return the system back to its original form.

Hereditary peers are a great idea. The original peer is generally picked based on merit, and the politics of his decendents are random - no party affiliations needed to get into power. It is in fact a form of 'random selection democracy', coupled with long-term thinking due to its heritary rather than transient nature.

Post: #5

(02-20-2015 12:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The Parliament Acts in the UK should be repealed, as should all the subsequent laws regarding peers. That would return the system back to its original form.

Hereditary peers are a great idea. The original peer is generally picked based on merit, and the politics of his decendents are random - no party affiliations needed to get into power. It is in fact a form of 'random selection democracy', coupled with long-term thinking due to its heritary rather than transient nature.

Precisely. What I like about the idea is that presumably hereditary peers will already be wealthy; they would not risk an enormous corruption scandal. We just need to think-up a way to force them to educate their children.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #6

(02-20-2015 12:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Hereditary peers are a great idea. The original peer is generally picked based on merit, and the politics of his decendents are random - no party affiliations needed to get into power. It is in fact a form of 'random selection democracy', coupled with long-term thinking due to its heritary rather than transient nature.

Hereditary peers were picked from the nobility, and virtually all have been and still are Tory's.

Post: #7

(02-20-2015 12:56 AM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  We just need to think-up a way to force them to educate their children.

Lol that's like saying we should force them to eat. They'll do it anyway, in the best most toffy schools money can buy.

Post: #8

(02-20-2015 01:44 AM)Deluge Wrote:  Hereditary peers were picked from the nobility, and virtually all have been and still are Tory's.

Yes fair point, I think the 'significant achievement' stuff is more recent.
Sure they well may well be members of the Tory party, but the party has no whipping power over a peer for life. He can vote however he wants with impunity.

Post: #9

(02-20-2015 04:43 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:56 AM)Porfirio Rubirosa Wrote:  We just need to think-up a way to force them to educate their children.

Lol that's like saying we should force them to eat. They'll do it anyway, in the best most toffy schools money can buy.

Believe it or not, the elite in my country frequently fails at this with both men and women. I come from a upper-middle class family that frequently comes into contact with the upper class and the amount of uneducated rich kids only capable of discussing how many Stella Artois bottles (they consider it a very ''opulent'' drink which shows their wealth) they drank in a night is mesmerising. Admittedly, it does seem to be different in the UK but stupid Sloane Rangers are in abundance too.

Maybe these people I've met were just stupid without remedy.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).