Should Washington have been made King?

#1

JoeKyleVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
1,163
Likes
497
#1
An interesting tidbit of history is the select few Founding Fathers who were more inclined to an American royalist constitutional monarchy of our own. The prospect was never seriously considered, but should George Washington have been made King? Or another prince procured from a royal line?

Our current American sensibilities recoil at the idea of a King, but that was not quite so during that time. In fact, most of our distaste from monarchs comes more from Jefferson's scapegoating of King George III, which was not exactly the most accurate of representations (and I say that as a huge fan of Jefferson).

I think an interesting facet of the constitutional monarchy is that the Executive is not beholden to outside interest groups for campaign funding, nor does he/she need to promise "gifts from the public treasury" to ensure re-election by the people, pandering as leaders like President Obama have.

Going off my other thread of the separation of the US---our political climate today is so polarized that whenever a new President is elected, half the country hails him as Messiah and the other half abhors him as the Antichrist. All that matters is if our political tribe wins and gets our man elected, dividing the country even further in the process.

Perhaps a leader, non-partisan and above the fray, who is an unelected and hereditary royal monarch who reigns out of love for the country and not out of partisan games and for special-interest groups would have been/would be better than squabbling groups always vying for the executive position while wasting billions of dollars.

Besides, the Presidents have more power than even a King in a constitutional monarchy. But, a King can stand as a sign for the country and be a symbol of unity for the people. Presidents seem only to divide and polarize.

I close with two quotes:

"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny and oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt." -Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson

"The monarch must have proportional strength. He ought to be hereditary, and to have so much power, that it will not be his interest to risk much to acquire more. The advantage of a monarch is this---he is above corruption---he must always intend, in respect to foreign nations, the true interest and glory of the people." -Alexander Hamilton

What say you?
 
#2
#2
It is no secret that democracies/republics have their own problems. Plato railed on such forms of government.

What makes our government (a republic) even remotely worthwhile is the Bill or Rights.
 
#3
#3
It is no secret that democracies/republics have their own problems. Plato railed on such forms of government.

What makes our government (a republic) even remotely worthwhile is the Bill or Rights.

The problem of democratic republics is mob rule. What happens when ignorant and uneducated people elect bad leaders, or leaders who simply promise them stuff? Then those partisan leaders, who have created this voting bloc through greed, must continually promise more to placate the people and safeguard their own power.

Plato was too much of an elitist in his stratification of society, but I do find his idea of a "philosopher king" an appealing one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
The problem of democratic republics is mob rule. What happens when ignorant and uneducated people elect bad leaders, or leaders who simply promise them stuff? Then those partisan leaders, who have created this voting bloc through greed, must continually promise more to placate the people and safeguard their own power.

Plato was too much of an elitist in his stratification of society, but I do find his idea of a "philosopher king" an appealing one.

I'm not implying that he wasn't. I'm just saying the weaknesses of democracies/republics have been well-known since Plato sketched them.

I too like the philosopher king in theory. However, implementing such a system is problematic.* Grooming a Marcus Aurelius is not easy. Practically, a society would have to have a Bill or Rights to accompany any philosopher king.
 
#6
#6
Problem is, while you may get an Augustus with a hereditary monarchy, you're also likely to get a Caligula or Nero, then you're stuck with them for life.
 
#7
#7
I'm not implying that he wasn't. I'm just saying the weaknesses of democracies/republics have been well-known since Plato sketched them.

I too like the philosopher king in theory. However, implementing such a system is problematic.* Grooming a Marcus Aurelius is not easy. Practically, a society would have to have a Bill or Rights to accompany any philosopher king.

I certainly agree about the Bill of Rights. The stronger and longer-lasting monarchies were the ones who incorporated limited constitutional power, like the English, rather than the absolute monarch, like the French. One monarchy still stands, while the other met its end.
 
#8
#8
I certainly agree about the Bill of Rights. The stronger and longer-lasting monarchies were the ones who incorporated limited constitutional power, like the English, rather than the absolute monarch, like the French. One monarchy still stands, while the other met its end.

They didn't voluntarily go that route. You would still have the problem of how it would be limited, the electorate if there was a body of the people, etc.

The modern English monarchy is all for show.
 
#9
#9
They didn't voluntarily go that route. You would still have the problem of how it would be limited, the electorate if there was a body of the people, etc.

The modern English monarchy is all for show.

Yes, the monarchy of England is simply a figurehead, but it's rather remarkable that such an office has persisted until today.

I would argue for a monarch that is more than a figurehead, but still limited by a constitution bearing things like the Bill of Rights. An Enlightened Monarch, if you will, whose job it is to secure, protect, and ensure the rights of the people, and the full expression of those rights.

The problem with democracy is that the masses can be led by the nose by leaders whose true intentions are only their winning elections and gaining power in order to profit themselves and their cronies. A king is the king---he does not need favors, he does not need to pander to billionaire donors, he does not cater to special-interest groups---he only seeks to improve the country, for its glory and his.

We suffer from a lack of wise leaders who will make the tough, but correct decisions. Instead, we have people like Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and John Boehner. Partisan hackery at its worst. We have no Marcus Aurelius to lead us right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
We would probably be better off had we never allowed the popular vote to be part of the equation for POTUS elections. Similarly, the 17th Amendment should be repealed as well.
 
#14
#14

Very interesting and entertaining video. However, I would argue its premises are quite flawed, especially with regards to taxation as "theft."

Taxation is merely part of the social contract of which a person in a civilized society must partake in order to ensure the protection of their rights. It's like insurance---I pay so much into a pool in order that, should I need assistance myself, I have something which (should) ensure that my needs are met. Taxation is simply the funding of necessary public works that benefit the people which they otherwise would not (or could not) purchase by their own power individually.

If I remember correctly, you support Anarcho-Capitalism, which prizes individualism above all else. I find the flaw in that being, instead of "the one with the biggest gun makes the rules," it is "the one with the biggest wallet makes the rules." It seems it would ultimately revert to a "state of nature," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
 
#15
#15
Very interesting and entertaining video. However, I would argue its premises are quite flawed, especially with regards to taxation as "theft."

Taxation is merely part of the social contract of which a person in a civilized society must partake in order to ensure the protection of their rights. It's like insurance---I pay so much into a pool in order that, should I need assistance myself, I have something which (should) ensure that my needs are met. Taxation is simply the funding of necessary public works that benefit the people which they otherwise would not (or could not) purchase by their own power individually.

If I remember correctly, you support Anarcho-Capitalism, which prizes individualism above all else. I find the flaw in that being, instead of "the one with the biggest gun makes the rules," it is "the one with the biggest wallet makes the rules." It seems it would ultimately revert to a "state of nature," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Can you provide me with a copy of this social contract? Also, can I opt out of this supposed system without the threat of violence upon my person or property?
 
#16
#16
Can you provide me with a copy of this social contract? Also, can I opt out of this supposed system without the threat of violence upon my person or property?

It is an implicit contract which you sign by merely existing as a social animal and moral agent. Whenever human beings began acting as moral agents, the social contract was born.

You, by existing, are a part of the moral sphere. You, by existing, have a moral perspective (usually consisting of "things which benefit me are good, those which hurt me are bad"). Another person may feel they are entitled to your possessions. You do not feel that way. You are thusly forced, even in your perspective of Anarcho-Capitalism, to enforce your moral perspective on others using force, if necessary.

Morality does not exist without the interaction of two conscious agents. Existing as a conscious agent makes you a part of the moral sphere. The moral sphere is comprised of yourself and society. You exist within a society. Therefore, you signed the moral contract by your existence as a conscious moral agent in a society of other conscious moral agents.
 
#17
#17
I'm not sure about your whole moral sphere argument, I, as a human being, own myself. No one has the right to rule me. I signed no contract giving my allegiance to anything. Human beings lives are defined by property, we are born into the world as property owners, I.e. We own ourselves. If I understand your argument correctly, because I'm born, I'm a slave to a system of force?(taxation) so we're all dupes to the supposed ruling class and we are to follow the myriad of arbitrary commands dictated by the politicians? I whole heartedly disagree.
 
#18
#18
Also, you never answered my question. Can I opt out of this system without threat of violence to my person or property? Or, will I be thrown into a cage, or if I resist, will I be killed?
 
#19
#19
I'm not sure about your whole moral sphere argument, I, as a human being, own myself. No one has the right to rule me. I signed no contract giving my allegiance to anything. Human beings lives are defined by property, we are born into the world as property owners, I.e. We own ourselves. If I understand your argument correctly, because I'm born, I'm a slave to a system of force?(taxation) so we're all dupes to the supposed ruling class and we are to follow the myriad of arbitrary commands dictated by the politicians? I whole heartedly disagree.

Yes, you are born as a property-owner since you own yourself (I agree with that).

But, you are also born a son or daughter to a mother and father, and sometimes siblings. In "original" human society, our neighbors would have been our family. Existing as a being born into a moral sphere (the myriad of moral perspectives of the other conscious moral agents), you have a moral obligation to your family. If one wishes to press the point of the obligation of familial duties, then one could say you are born into an existence where there are the moral perspectives of other agents with which you must interact.

Even with discussion of self-ownership, your body was once a part of the bodies of your progenitors, and additional mass was accumulated to it over the years by the produce of the Earth, without which no person can sow or reap. So, self-ownership, with respect to the body, is not a total absolute, as it was dependent upon other people and things for its existence.

Now, back to the social contract: as a society possesses a moral sphere (again, whose perspectives usually comprise "what is good is what is beneficial for me; what is bad is what is detrimental to me"), we all have a moral persective we hold. I believe I own myself and my stuff. To ensure that no one kills me or steals my stuff I can use violence. But, I might be weaker than those who seek to take my stuff, or I may not have enough time to guard it, and I know I have to sleep (so I'm vulnerable then). Well, that is the case with the other people in my society, too. In order to ensure our rights are protected, we pay taxes to pay for a person whose job it is to make sure no one kills me or takes my stuff, or at least can help reprimand those who seek to do so.

One can change societies, or one could abandon society all together, but one cannot be both in a society and not a part of the social contract.
 
#20
#20
Also, you never answered my question. Can I opt out of this system without threat of violence to my person or property? Or, will I be thrown into a cage, or if I resist, will I be killed?

On occasion, I hear a trucker on the CB babbling on about how he's declared himself a "sovereign citizen" and how he is no longer subject to the laws of the state. He descends further into lunacy by calling anybody who disagrees with him a "slave to the corporate state". He blathers about other things, too. He decries capitalism, corporatism, the Federal Reserve and probably Santa Claus.

I've always thought this was funny because 1) he's driving a company truck, 2) he's being paid in US dollars to drive that truck, 3) he's having taxes taken out of his paycheck, 4) his labor is being used by his company to make money, which is used to pay taxes to the government.

It's hilarious and sad at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
So, what you're basically saying is, I didn't build that... Lol

All jokes aside, I understand the parental right to raise a person until they are fit to live on their own.
So, as a productive member of society, I can exercise my talents and obtain gainful employment, and enter into a voluntary (that word is key) contract with this employer. I can also do the same with the power company, phone company, Netflix, etc.
but what I cannot do is choose the system of protection which would offer me security. That is hardly voluntary. I am forced to pay for something that I do not want, and is not effective, nor accountable to the people who are forced to pay for their "services". Being a subscriber to Netflix, if they raise their prices or do something I do not like, I can unsubscribe and go somewhere else and not face any reprisal. I can't do that with the police, nor the government. I have no freedom of association when it comes to the state. So this social contract you talk about does not exist. Because by definition a contract is something two sides agree upon.

Saying our tax system is voluntary is like saying charity is compulsory.
 
#22
#22
So, what you're basically saying is, I didn't build that... Lol

All jokes aside, I understand the parental right to raise a person until they are fit to live on their own.
So, as a productive member of society, I can exercise my talents and obtain gainful employment, and enter into a voluntary (that word is key) contract with this employer. I can also do the same with the power company, phone company, Netflix, etc.
but what I cannot do is choose the system of protection which would offer me security. That is hardly voluntary. I am forced to pay for something that I do not want, and is not effective, nor accountable to the people who are forced to pay for their "services". Being a subscriber to Netflix, if they raise their prices or do something I do not like, I can unsubscribe and go somewhere else and not face any reprisal. I can't do that with the police, nor the government. I have no freedom of association when it comes to the state. So this social contract you talk about does not exist. Because by definition a contract is something two sides agree upon.

Saying our tax system is voluntary is like saying charity is compulsory.

Yes, you didn't build that. You may have been the primary actor in the process, but you didn't, and can't, do it all yourself.

By agreeing to live within a society you implicitly agree to the social contract, and no, you cannot opt out of it unless you leave society.

You can refuse to be a part of society, but that is your only recourse to not partaking in a social contract. Even within only a familial setting, you agree to not kill each other in your sleep and to share resources. That is an agreement, or contract.

You are a part of the social contract if you choose to interact with other conscious moral agents. You could go live in total isolation, but that is the only way to avoid immediate obligation to society (not even counting one's familial duties).

Perhaps the implications of this disturbs you, but human beings are not islands unto themselves. Individuals are like base units of humanity, but they must still have a number system within which to function.

The issue I would take with Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is not starting from an "original position," but is speaking of structuring society in a way that really only benefits those who are ALREADY wealthy and powerful. Sure, the idea of sovereign individuals making voluntary contracts to provide needs sounds great on its face, but the implications are dangerous.

Who benefits from a privately-funded military, road, or school? The owners or shareholders. Sure, those who pay for the good or service receive benefit, but they are not the ultimately intended beneficiaries.

In publically-funded endeavors, the public at large, and not private individuals, are the "shareholders" and intended beneficiaries.

Nature, by arbitrary accident, makes some stronger and some weaker. In order to ensure a more fair and just society among people, governments are instituted to protect those who are weaker from the stronger who may abuse their power.

I like John Rawls' "veil of ignorance," which postulates that, if I were in an "original position" prior to my existence, I would support a society that is equal and far, given that I might be (or could have been) born into a part of society that is weaker and which suffers at the hands of the strong and crafty.

Taxes are taken to provide public goods to benefit the people. Theft is taking with no regard to the welfare of the owner. But taxes are taken to support society as a whole and benefit the tax-payer. As taxes work to also benefit those from whom they are taken, they cannot be considered theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
Yes, you didn't build that. You may have been the primary actor in the process, but you didn't, and can't, do it all yourself.

By agreeing to live within a society you implicitly agree to the social contract, and no, you cannot opt out of it unless you leave society.

You can refuse to be a part of society, but that is your only recourse to not partaking in a social contract. Even within only a familial setting, you agree to not kill each other in your sleep and to share resources. That is an agreement, or contract.

You are a part of the social contract if you choose to interact with other conscious moral agents. You could go live in total isolation, but that is the only way to avoid immediate obligation to society (not even counting one's familial duties).

Perhaps the implications of this disturbs you, but human beings are not islands unto themselves. Individuals are like base units of humanity, but they must still have a number system within which to function.

The issue I would take with Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is not starting from an "original position," but is speaking of structuring society in a way that really only benefits those who are ALREADY wealthy and powerful. Sure, the idea of sovereign individuals making voluntary contracts to provide needs sounds great on its face, but the implications are dangerous.

Who benefits from a privately-funded military, road, or school? The owners or shareholders. Sure, those who pay for the good or service receive benefit, but they are not the ultimately intended beneficiaries.

In publically-funded endeavors, the public at large, and not private individuals, are the "shareholders" and intended beneficiaries.

Nature, by arbitrary accident, makes some stronger and some weaker. In order to ensure a more fair and just society among people, governments are instituted to protect those who are weaker from the stronger who may abuse their power.

I like John Rawls' "veil of ignorance," which postulates that, if I were in an "original position" prior to my existence, I would support a society that is equal and far, given that I might be (or could have been) born into a part of society that is weaker and which suffers at the hands of the strong and crafty.

Taxes are taken to provide public goods to benefit the people. Theft is taking with no regard to the welfare of the owner. But taxes are taken to support society as a whole and benefit the tax-payer. As taxes work to also benefit those from whom they are taken, they cannot be considered theft.

I'm terribly sorry, If you cannot provide a copy of this "social contract" I'm afraid it doesn't exist. You cannot just say "oh, you're born, now give me half of your income once you reach adulthood, because I'm government, and I'm here to help the poor."
If that is the case, anyone can just go door to door proclaiming themselves rulers and demanding money from people.

I think you have a very dangerous view of government. You honestly think they're here to help the poor? The first thing you should realize is, government has no money and they produce nothing. They can be likened to a leech sucking out the blood (money) of productive people.

Theft (A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.)
That is the definition of theft, I love how you say taxes also work to benefit those from whom they were taken. At least you admit it's "taken" you might as well step up to the plate and call it theft.
Please keep in mind who we're dealing with regards to government.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

That is governments world wide, 260 million people. Of course you'll respond by saying, "America would never do that" really? Ask an Indian if America would do that, ask a person who lived through Hiroshima or Nagasaki if America would do that.
So no, governments are not here to make things equal and help the poor, as you say. They're here to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else and when they do give someone money, you have to realize that money was stolen from someone else.
 
#25
#25
Yes, the monarchy of England is simply a figurehead, but it's rather remarkable that such an office has persisted until today.

I would argue for a monarch that is more than a figurehead, but still limited by a constitution bearing things like the Bill of Rights. An Enlightened Monarch, if you will, whose job it is to secure, protect, and ensure the rights of the people, and the full expression of those rights.

How that functionally works is still a problem. It is easy to write a Bill of Rights and then give a King sovereignty over the rest. Having a structure to adjudicate issues and a balance of power to enforce a Kind to oblige is the difficult part.

The problem with democracy is that the masses can be led by the nose by leaders whose true intentions are only their winning elections and gaining power in order to profit themselves and their cronies. A king is the king---he does not need favors, he does not need to pander to billionaire donors, he does not cater to special-interest groups---he only seeks to improve the country, for its glory and his.

We suffer from a lack of wise leaders who will make the tough, but correct decisions. Instead, we have people like Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and John Boehner. Partisan hackery at its worst. We have no Marcus Aurelius to lead us right now.

We both understand the weaknesses of democracies. I'm not sure why you keep sketching those differences.
 

VN Store



Back
Top