Spanish King Juan Carlos abdicates at 76, Prince Felipe(45) to take over the throne - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982301]Tell me there's anything keeping the states together beyond an overwhelmingly large federal government and military ... [/QUOTE] Yeah, I was just mentioning this to the US Secret Police man on my street while US soldiers patrolled every corner about how the [I]only[/I] thing keeping the country together is the federal government's power and the fear of our military might.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44982380]Extreme economic interdependence, identical culture and language, shared history, highly amiable relations between all states. Honestly, if you think that the U.S. is some fragmented state that's only being held together by military might and centralization, you have a very warped and wrong view of the country. But even if the U.S. was only held together by force, what does that have to do with republicanism? Where is the connection?[/quote] I'll give you economic integration, but identical culture and language? Give me a break. It has to do with republicanism because the time preference of republican politicians is limited by the 4-8 year term limits they have. They have a much lower incentive to prudently invest in the future, instead opting for short term political maneuvering, leading to unchecked growth in government spending and pork barrel politics. In contrast, the monarch is incentivized to think in the long term, since his term is for life, and will be inherited by his children. [quote]How was Germany republican during either of those eras? During the Revolution of '48, any attempts at democracy were crushed by the monarchists. I'm not sure why you brought this up, as it runs completely contrary to your point.[/quote] The '48 revolutionaries were aiming to completely destroy the delicate balance of power in Europe, and shatter the traditions that kept society functioning. The reactionaries acted rationally to kill a repeat of '89 in its crib. [quote]Which is identical to the situation in Spain and similar to the U.K. These things have nothing to do with monarchy or republicanism. It's a non-factor.[/quote] They aren't identical. Catalan and Venetians want independence from a decrepit bureaucracy. "Scots" want independence because of some bullshit idea that they are their own nation and the bad old Londonites are taking their oil. [quote]Once again, how does this help with your whole "constitutional monarchy means stability" argument?[/QUOTE] Because it means that, even in the worst case scenario of the dissolution of the Kingdom, there won't be much conflict. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44982380]I would bet that if I went [b]all[/b] the way back in time, I could find more unstable monarchies than republics. Haha! You're really going about this in a juvenile way. Point out the connection between monarchy and stability and republicanism and instability, and maybe you'll start making sense.[/QUOTE] Nope, even historically republics tended to be unstable. There's Venice aaaaaaaand nothing else.

[quote]I'll give you economic integration, but identical culture and language? Give me a break.It has to do with republicanism because the time preference of republican politicians is limited by the 4-8 year term limits they have. They have a much lower incentive to prudently invest in the future, instead opting for short term political maneuvering, leading to unchecked growth in government spending and pork barrel politics. In contrast, the monarch is incentivized to think in the long term, since his term is for life, and will be inherited by his children.[/quote]Wow, OK so now you've moved from constitutional monarchy to absolutism I think? Because otherwise, constitutional monarchies still have politicians who do exactly what you just described.But let's just pretend that politicians exist only in republics. Even if that were the case, the problems you list aren't inherent in a republican system at all. You could, for instance, posit a system with a life-long term. Then there wouldn't be that problem. I personally don't think that's a good idea, but it shows how the problem isn't inherently linked to republicanism. As a more concrete example, you could look at the U.S. Senate, which used to be a much more competent body before its elections were "outsourced" directly to the people. Term limits and campaigning aren't essential problems with a republican system. And, as I said, these problems aren't even limited to republics, but persist in constitutional monarchies as well.[quote]The '48 revolutionaries were aiming to completely destroy the delicate balance of power in Europe, and shatter the traditions that kept society functioning. The reactionaries acted rationally to kill a repeat of '89 in its crib.[/quote]What the aristocrats were afraid of was losing their centuries old vice grip on the lives of the millions of their subjects. Society could have and has been functioning quite nicely without these royal pretenders and manipulators quite easily.[quote]They aren't identical. Catalan and Venetians want independence from a decrepit bureaucracy. "Scots" want independence because of some bullshit idea that they are their own nation and the bad old Londonites are taking their oil.[/quote]Bad reading.[quote]Because it means that, even in the worst case scenario of the dissolution of the Kingdom, there won't be much conflict.[/quote]Care to explain this? You just said it, now can you tell me why there wouldn't be conflict? And nobody ever mentioned a "dissolution of the Kingdom," why bring that up? You said that monarchies are more stable than republics for some "empirical" reason, so I'd like to hear you explain this evidence to me.

Let's not forget the [url='http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/122/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Monarchy-v-Republic-19932013.aspx?view=wide']significant majority of the British population that supports maintaining the monarchy[/url]. The fact that the majority are supportive of the current constitutional system is evidence of its success and the stability that it provides. Obviously if people aren't happy with it then they're going to demand reform. The monarchy in the UK is mostly window dressing, anyway. Constitutionally, the monarch holds very little political power, and is more of an influence on political ideology than a contributor to British politics.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44978462]Hopefully the Spanish people refuse to recognize the continuance of such a worthless and lecherous institution as a monarchy, and that this spreads throughout the rest of the continent. I hope to see all monarchies gone from the world before the end of my life.[/QUOTE] Unlikely. Scandinavia and Spain might get rid of it when they have absolutely nothing else to do, but a lot of Brits seem to have an innate monarchy boner that they can only suppress for like a decade at best (as Boku demonstrates). The only thing that I think could bring it down is either proof to the claims that they're a drain on the economy or a republican (not the American political party) ascending to the throne. Outside of Europe you have arguably even more resilient crowns and one that even has political power. But more than that is the fact that some dictatorships act like monarchies even though they don't call themselves monarchies. Could we really call monarchies dead if there were still men handing their countries down to their sons using a quasi-religious Cult of Personality to justify the succession?

[quote]Let's not forget the significant majority of the British population that supports maintaining the monarchy. The fact that the majority are supportive of the current constitutional system is evidence of its success and the stability that it provides. Obviously if people aren't happy with it then they're going to demand reform. The monarchy in the UK is mostly window dressing, anyway. Constitutionally, the monarch holds very little political power, and is more of an influence on political ideology than a contributor to British politics.[/quote] And I bet if you took a poll of the American people the majority would vote [b]not[/b] to turn the country into a monarchy. Is this evidence of the stable properties of a republic? No. This is stupid nonsense. As for appealing to the majority opinion in general, just imagine a world filled with only republics. Imagine someone suggesting the idea of a monarchy in such a world. It would be ridiculous and outlandish. The idea only retains support into the modern age due to both the continued control of the aristocrats in power as well as the more subtle force of nationalism which grants the aristocrats respect and admiration through ignorant historical charm.

[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982301]Tell me there's anything keeping the states together beyond an overwhelmingly large federal government and military ...[/QUOTE] ahahahaha no we may bicker and argue among ourselves like a bunch of toddlers, but when it comes down to it, we're all Americans

[QUOTE=Explosions;44982607]Wow, OK so now you've moved from constitutional monarchy to absolutism I think? Because otherwise, constitutional monarchies still have politicians who do exactly what you just described.But let's just pretend that politicians exist only in republics. Even if that were the case, the problems you list aren't inherent in a republican system at all. You could, for instance, posit a system with a life-long term. Then there wouldn't be that problem. I personally don't think that's a good idea, but it shows how the problem isn't inherently linked to republicanism. As a more concrete example, you could look at the U.S. Senate, which used to be a much more competent body before its elections were "outsourced" directly to the people. Term limits and campaigning aren't essential problems with a republican system. And, as I said, these problems aren't even limited to republics, but persist in constitutional monarchies as well.[/quote] Yes, a republic with a lifelong term would do better than a republic with term limits. But then, hereditary succession would also be a strict improvement upon that. [quote]What the aristocrats were afraid of was losing their centuries old vice grip on the lives of the millions of their subjects. Society could have and has been functioning quite nicely without these royal pretenders and manipulators quite easily.[/quote] Apparently not? [img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/07/constitutionalmonarchy.png[/img] Bad reading. [quote]Care to explain this? You just said it, now can you tell me why there wouldn't be conflict? And nobody ever mentioned a "dissolution of the Kingdom," why bring that up? You said that monarchies are more stable than republics for some "empirical" reason, so I'd like to hear you explain this evidence to me.[/QUOTE] There won't be conflict because HM's Govt has given a cast-iron guarantee that it will respect the result of the Scottish referendum. Whereas Italy won't hear a word of it. Dissolution of the Kingdom as in the Kingdom will be partitioned into two pieces. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44982658]As for appealing to the majority opinion in general, just imagine a world filled with only republics. Imagine someone suggesting the idea of a monarchy in such a world. It would be ridiculous and outlandish. The idea only retains support into the modern age due to both the continued control of the aristocrats in power as well as the more subtle force of nationalism which grants the aristocrats respect and admiration through ignorant historical charm.[/QUOTE] A world of monarchies would laugh at the idea of republics, I don't see how that's evidence in favor of either. But of course, I guess democracy is only legitimate when people vote for the system you like ..

[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982710][img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/07/constitutionalmonarchy.png[/img] [/QUOTE] Do you have any concept of the difference between correlation and causation? Try arguing this way in a professional setting, see how long it takes for you to be laughed out of the room.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44982804]Do you have any concept of the difference between correlation and causation? Try arguing this way in a professional setting, see how long it takes for you to be laughed out of the room.[/QUOTE] Yes I know the difference, but at the same time it's polite to give an alternate explanation for the data. GDP causing monarchies doesn't work, so we're left with some other variable that causes both. Let's go with survivorship bias: more stable nations have fewer revolutions, and stable nations are more prosperous. Therefore the stable countries become rich while retaining their vestigial monarchies. Curious how republics are thus fundamentally on the side of [I]chaos[/I] and [I]disorder[/I]. Besides, a ~professional setting~? This is an internet forum, there's no need to take everything so seriously :)

In Britain, the monarchs are basically just public figures. They open shopping centres and things, they represent us on the more symbolic trips to foreign countries (rather than the political ones which Cameron goes to), they give speeches and shit, they're a symbol of a bygone era, and a lot of people find them fairly charming (although not without their flaws). Yes, we pay them taxpayer money, and perhaps there is a discussion to be had over that topic, but to imply that a modern monarch, especially the Queen's, life is utter luxury with absolutely no work done whatsoever simply isn't true. It might not be working in a mine, but they're essentially human landmarks, with all the pros and cons which come with that.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iihh2Ds.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982843]Yes I know the difference, but at the same time it's polite to give an alternate explanation for the data. GDP causing monarchies doesn't work, so we're left with some other variable that causes both. Let's go with survivorship bias: more stable nations have fewer revolutions, and stable nations are more prosperous. Therefore the stable countries become rich while retaining their vestigial monarchies. Curious how republics are thus fundamentally on the side of [I]chaos[/I] and [I]disorder[/I].[/QUOTE] Most constitutional monarchies are in Europe. Europe industrialized the earliest, modern Europe is now a post-industrial continent (for the most part), therefore there are high wages and a high standard of living. Japan fits this as well. You've stated a claim, you've presented evidence (which is more than can be said for the average poster, so props to you), but you haven't connected them.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44982658]And I bet if you took a poll of the American people the majority would vote [b]not[/b] to turn the country into a monarchy. Is this evidence of the stable properties of a republic? No. This is stupid nonsense.[/quote] How is it stupid nonsense? If the people are in support of the current constitutional system, then that is evidence of its stability in the country that it is in effect. Trying to introduce a republic into the UK with current support for the monarchy would lead to instability, not deter it. [quote] As for appealing to the majority opinion in general, just imagine a world filled with only republics. Imagine someone suggesting the idea of a monarchy in such a world. It would be ridiculous and outlandish. The idea only retains support into the modern age due to both the continued control of the aristocrats in power as well as the more subtle force of nationalism which grants the aristocrats respect and admiration through ignorant historical charm.[/QUOTE] You're acting as if there isn't a substitute for the British aristocracy in the US. Inherited wealth, power and status doesn't have to come from the landed gentry of monarchical systems any more. If you look at the wealth divisions in the US, you'll see that the republican system hasn't protected the majority from allowing the wealthy to hold significant control in politics.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;44982906]You're acting as if there isn't a substitute for the British aristocracy in the US. Inherited wealth, power and status doesn't have to come from the landed gentry of monarchical systems any more. If you look at the wealth divisions in the US, you'll see that the republican system hasn't protected the majority from allowing the wealthy to hold significant control in politics.[/QUOTE] This may be true. But at least we've gotten rid of the archaic tradition of aristocratic "birthright" which has an abusive and bloody history attached to it.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44982893]Most constitutional monarchies are in Europe. Europe industrialized the earliest, modern Europe is now a post-industrial continent (for the most part), therefore there are high wages and a high standard of living. Japan fits this as well.[/quote] But then, why are most constitutional monarchies in the post-industrial place? [quote]You've stated a claim, you've presented evidence (which is more than can be said for the average poster, so props to you), but you haven't connected them.[/QUOTE] I've posted above about time preference. [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;44982932]This may be true. But at least we've gotten rid of the archaic tradition of aristocratic "birthright" which has an abusive and bloody history attached to it.[/QUOTE] Birthright is a useful Schelling point for filling power vacuums. There's also the Evolian arguments for it contributing to an Organic State.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44982932]This may be true. But at least we've gotten rid of the archaic tradition of aristocratic "birthright" which has an abusive and bloody history attached to it.[/QUOTE] It may have "history" (being the keyword here) attached to it, but the hereditary monarchical and aristocratic system in the UK works because it provides a constant system of political stability amid the turmoil of a change in government through elections. The dual system between the Lords and the Commons in Parliament also works as it ensures that the government is held accountable, scrutinised and debated with for the policies it attempts to introduce, from both an elected representative standpoint, and an independent peerage standpoint.

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;44983131]It may have "history" (being the keyword here) attached to it, but the hereditary monarchical and aristocratic system in the UK works because it provides a constant system of political stability amid the turmoil of a change in government through elections. The dual system between the Lords and the Commons in Parliament also works as it ensures that the government is held accountable, scrutinised and debated with for the policies it attempts to introduce, from both an elected representative standpoint, and an independent peerage standpoint.[/QUOTE] Everything this man says has been observed by Linz.