The general decline in standards today

^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 …

bk

William Stratford, it's difficult to respond to your post when you continually add to it & change it's content.

I'd prefer not to engage with you any further so I'll leave it at this - The absence of a democratic form of government is dictatorship.

Drappa said:

^Except for the fact that there is a marked difference between authority over children and authority over adults.

Click to expand...

There is, yes, however if you question the hereditary principle that will also degrade the role of parents (because if the public input belongs in setting the standards for the community, it can very easily be extended into the family as well).

Baron Kurtz said:

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 …

Click to expand...

Its not about ability (in the meritocratic sense) but simply about removing whim and ambition from the role of governing - factors that remain even in a Constitutional Republic. So lords/senators/insert-name would not be removable, but would be kept in check by the rest. If they cannot be kept in check by the rest, there is no reason to think that the general populace would be any better at doing so...in fact there is reason to think that they would be worse, in that democracy has shown their vulnerability to whim, ambition and demagoguery.

As I said, there is no perfect system, but democracy is far from being the best of the options. Both Constitutional Republic and Constitutional Aristocracy could work a lot better (at providing stability and protecting against whim, ambition, arbitrary rule and demagoguery) with the latter being better than the former because the former still relies on voting for ambitious "representatives".

lolly_loisides said:

William Stratford, it's difficult to respond to your post when you continually add to it & change it's content.

Click to expand...

"Have added to, in order to clarify a point" is not the same as "continually add to it & change it's content". It is getting impossible to discuss things here without being misrepresented.

Interestingly, there are scholars who argue that the EU would best survive by adopting a constitutional identity, much like the US. Critics who argue that Europe can never work due to the number of languages, cultures and histories which are forcibly united through politics forget that similar things were said about The US and that what binds the US together so strongly is their constitution.
However, I doubt that a modern citizenship will put up with aristocracy much longer because it simply doesn't make sense that being born into a role equates to a great sense of duty and responsibility or that those persons are even suited to the role.
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.

Drappa said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is where part of the mistake in the opposing argument rests. It is not a matter of an hereditary aristocracy having a great sense of duty and responsibility (I suspect that they have no greater or lesser sense of duty and responsibility than many typical families) but rather that an elected government is categorically connected to ambition in its elected representatives, who in competition rapidly sink to catering to the whim of the electorate in order to be elected.

A healthy government is about stability and cohesion, and that is not enabled in a system based upon competition, ambition, and rabble-rousing or catering to the whim of the moment as is necessary for votes.

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.

Click to expand...

Which is a response to criminal activity, not a default setting of distrust. When we call into distrust the hereditary principle, we call into being a default setting of distrust in inheritance (which is VERY useful in promoting consumerism as well).

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.

William Stratford said:

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).

Click to expand...

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"

lolly_loisides said:

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?

Click to expand...

If I get to be the ruler, I'm fine with it.

Seriously, though -- they'll have to pry my right to vote from my cold, dead hands because I'm never giving it up willingly.

Drappa said:

Yet I would argue that there is no reason there should be a default setting of trust for aristocracy

Click to expand...

For aristocracy in itself, I would agree. But a constitutional aristocracy is a very different beast.

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.

Click to expand...

A head of state would not be part of a constitutional aristocracy, as that would make the aristocracy into a form of govt that would need ambition once more (to "have the king's ear"), and it is not a matter of the populace being immature, but rather of Burke's notion that the species is wise but the individual foolish.

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.

Click to expand...

A direct democracy of all the populace would suffer similar problems to the form we have now, which are innate to the nature of democracy.

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....

Democracy is in-keeping with consumerism, and as such is deeply unhealthy. It thrives on the idea of constant change under the direction of how you feel at the moment. Its politicians play for this and depend upon it also, as they embody the same appetite and ambition as consumerism demands. Making enfranchisement itself an act of consumption.

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.

As I said, no system is perfect, but give me a Constitutional Aristocracy any day over the enshrining of ambition, appetite, whim, consumption and demagoguery.

Gin&Tonics said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not comparing them, merely illustrating how hereditary gaining of position of responsibility is not inherently faulty....and how when we hold that it is, we challenge the existence of the family itself.

As Churchill said,"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Click to expand...

He was wrong.

Note: I'll just add that a Constitutional Republic would also probably work as well, but you would have a hell of a time guarding against ambition and demagogues in it.

William Stratford said:

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.

.

Click to expand...

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. It also works on the assumption that traditions are a good thing for everyone, which is simply not true.

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.

William Stratford said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Drappa said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not idealising it, no system will ever be perfect, but what I recognise is that is has a greater capacity for good things (stability, coherence, cohesion, and slow organic change) and a greater capacity for reducing bad things (demagoguery, ambition and the arbitrary rule of appetite/whim).

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.

Click to expand...

I am not equating them, but they are connected in nature because in democracy enfranchisement becomes an act of consumption by virtue of its inherent message of constant change (which, if it did not value, it would discard in favour of enshrining tradition over the ballot).

The market and democracy go together, just as the market and tradition oppose each other.

Flicka said:

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?

Click to expand...

By definition there is no empirical evidence for a constitutional aristocracy. Instead I am arguing from principle and have repeatedly said how it differs from oligarchy.

William Stratford said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Flicka said:

Aha, so it's based on nothing but your own theorising?

Click to expand...

Yes. Is that a problem?

Of course, the absence of empircal evidence is not exactly problematic, as for several thousand years we have seen people try to unify Europe (Rome, Napoleon, everyone's favourite germanic internet cliché) and the empirical evidence is not so pleasant....but people still promote it.

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.

Click to expand...

Except that it isnt an oligarchy in any real sense because the rule/authority is in the constitution and not in the lords/senators (or whatever name is used), whose job is to act as jury when a dispute arises (as opposed to democracy, where people are ambitious to the position of power and connive to get there). And I am using the term "aristocracy" to illustrate a small group of people who inherit their position (which is how must understand the term).

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 tool of 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 clearly go together at all, at least not in my mind. 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?

Drappa said:

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?

Click to expand...

Democracy is linked to the market in that they both are set against inheritance and tradition; with people instead procuring now, whether it be goods or practices, rather than receiving something old. If people inherit values, customs, principles, etc, there is no place for democracy (as no one would need to vote and create anything new). If people inherit goods, there is no place for the market (in the modern sense) as there would not be a supply of customers for the goods (as they would be inheriting them instead). Thus the market and democracy are linked, sharing a common value against inheritance and tradition whilst being for procurement and consumption (which is part of what makes it less stable as well).

So who would decide which traditions and inheritances should be part of the system? Most traditions in all forms of society have profited only some people, especially those who are born into positions of power. What about the rest? Why are inheritance and tradition valuable simply by virtue of having been around long? Many women, minorities or in fact thinking people would disagree that stable and traditional is desirable.