Democracy: The God That Failed

Specifications of the Monarchical System Pro's definition of monarchy has very little to do with his given source. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article (which is not the most credulous source, since he can edit it) is there mention of "private property", which is integral to the rest of his argument. His definition is an elementary definition of monarchy, which is merely the "rule by one" [1]. Pro even stated this definition in the opening round. By diverging from the basic definition, asserting falsely that private property exists in a monarchy (which it may, but is certainly not assumed under monarchy), and limiting rule by one to only those which are heredity succession, Pro butchers what monarchy is to limit historical examples unfavorable to his argument. Criterion: Economic ProsperityWhile Pro's anarchist roots show through here, I cannot understand how he can argue for a monarchy and state that "we can only prefer a system that gives people maximal freedom in pursuing their interests". Perhaps a monarch could foster a system giving maximal freedom, but to argue an actual relationship between a monarchical political structure and economic freedom is silly. C1 Public and Private WarThis argument violates the ceteris paribus methodology Pro set the section before. The argument that private wars reduce costs of war is hindered by the fact that wars between two heredity rulers (Pro's definition) is a historically limited example. And while Pro (citing Hoppe) states that military spending has increased since the monarchical era as a result of the democratic system, Pro offers no explanation of this, a controversial claim and not historically accepted claim. I hate to attack sources, but most of Pro's argument relies on Hoppe's ideologically driven, anti-democracy works. As I understand it, sources are primarily used to validate facts. For example, pro could cite a source validating that "military spending has doubled or quadrupled since the far more volatile monarchical era" because this is an empirical statistical fact. But to casually assert increased military spending is due to democracy (which this history student has never heard in years of military history study) would be equivalent to myself casually asserting that "history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," and citing the Communist Manifesto as though it a scientifically reviewed statistical fact. If Pro would like to extensively draw his points from one piece of work, just let me debate Hoppe instead and eliminate the middle man. But to cite the conclusions of Hoppe's arguments as though they were historically accepted facts won't work in a serious setting. And since we are momentarily lifting ceteris paribus, it seems as though monarchs in the twentieth century, that is governments "ruled by one", such as Stalin or Hitler or Hussein, spent quite a sum of money on military ventures. C2. Time PreferenceAgain, this is an ahistorical argument. Much of European history is the history of kings and monarchs overextending their armies for short term successes (Charles VIII), taxing citizens to fund incompetent bureaucracies (Louis XVI), and depleting capital to fulfill some distorted personal image. Pro's assertion that a ruler in a democratic system would have no regard for long term successes is true, but in a representative democracy, the citizens have the ability to elect representatives who they feel will implement a long term strategy. If the citizens are tricked by demagoguery into electing a self-preserving despot, then they can only blame their gullibility. But at least they have the freedom to choose someone who represents what they perceive as a long term vision, instead of having one imposed by a king. C3. Economic CalculationYes, I agree with Pro that capitalism is preferable to socialism. Fortunately, this doesn't strengthen his argument. And his assertion that "only a monarch who can run his nation like a business can make rational economic decisions" is unfounded and unsourced. Again, for every shrewd monarch in history that runs "his" nation (one cannot own a nation by the way, only a state) like a business, there is a counter example of a monarch wasting his resources like lottery prize money. There is no guarantee that a monarch will be savvy on running a business. In a democracy, the people can either pass laws that ensure proper allocation of resources or not, but at least there is accountability for their choices. C4. Legitimacy and Public Relations C5. Monarchy Contra SocialismI don't understand Pro's argument here. The debate is not Monarchy versus Socialism, but Monarchy versus Democracy. If a nation would like to limit immigration, ban welfare, and institute a free market which rewards the members of society based upon their productivity, the democracy can institute the policies through deportation, etc. Monarchy and Democracy are structures of government, that is, systems of allocating power in the state. That is what this debate is about: which is the best way to allocate power. Socialism is an ideology that places the means of production and resources under government control. A monarchy can be capitalist, mercantile, corporatist, or fascist. A democracy can be capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. Just because a democracy CAN be socialist doesn't mean it is inherently socialist, which means Pro's arguments against socialism do not strengthen his arguments against democracy. Social DegeneracyThis is a stupid and baseless argument because Pro uses his own morality to determine the superiority of a structure of government. If I liked divorce, abortion, and unemployment would it mean democracy is better? Moreover, there are not reliable statistics about abortion and obesity in 8th Century France, so how can you make this argument? The historical record is not consistent and you cannot prove an increase in immorality tied to structure of government. Ceteris paribus???To be honest, I have great respect for Pro and his arguments to date. That being said, I am rather appalled at this "social degeneracy" argument. It is pathetic. Economic Consequences:Unfortunately, I am running out of time to finish this round as I went fishing for 2 days arriving home this morning to debate. Therefore, I cannot provide a complete argument against these statistics. All I will argue this that history is a very complex thing. Population has increased exponentially, having over 6 billion more people on earth than when many of Pro's statistics are sourced. We have transitioned to complex nation-states, from decentralized states, interest rates (which were banned as usury by the Church) are now used in a different context than before,etc. Again, I think Pro drawing a simple line from monarchy to democracy and attributing all economic and social causalities to this is simplistic thinking. Social, religious, cultural, economic, technological conditions have changed so much over recent history, that it is simply unscientific to draw these conclusions as cause and effect. A scientist cannot grow one species of peas in Siberia and another species of Peas in California and attribute all the differences to the different species of pea. The climactic conditions invalidate any proper comparison. So when Pro tries to interest rates in the 15th century to the 21st century, so much change has occurred that any comparison is ridiculous. Again, I would like to apologize for any mistakes in spelling or grammar that have been made during this round. This post is the product of two hours of straight typing. And while I did not have time to make extensive use of sources, I do not believe that it is necessary in refuting these argument. But again, I am sorry for the simplicity here. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... Using the first, and most fundamental definition.