Monarchy and Democracy

IntroductionIn this round, I’ll try presenting my position as clearly as possible. The arguments I make are difficult to follow, so I ask just stick with me, and figure out what I’m saying, before judging the debate. A great deal of the argumentation in this debate depends on the meaning we ascribe to “inherent. ”This is the fundamental disagreement: Pro argues an “inherent” thing includes things external to it, whereas I argue “inherent” excludes the external and refers solely to the thing in and of itself. According to the standard definition Pro provides, inherent means “involved in the constitution or essential character of something. ” I agree with this definition. To me, this definition clearly implies a distinction between “essence” and “existence. ” I argue, then, that my definition of "inherent" is more consistent with the accepted definition, which refers to the “essence” of the thing. Pro’s definition includes not only essence but also the thing’s actual existence. The problem with Pro’s definition, however, is that then the word is empty: it includes everything, both the essence and existence. As such, my understanding of “inherent” is the correct one. Moving on. I argue that the “essence” of a political system excludes history. Historical implementation refers to a political system's “existence,” not its “essence. ” Thus, to make sense of a system “inherently” is to theorize it, in and of itself, without recourse to its historical and material instantiations. I therefore extend my previous argument that the debate is about political theory, not political history, and proceed to my conclusions with these premises in mind. BOPPro claims I skew the BOP in my favor because Pro must defend his system on historical grounds. That is false. I challenge Pro or any reader to find a single “practical historical objection” I make to Pro’s case. There are none because I make none, and therefore, at no point have I forced Pro to defend Monarchy on historical grounds. Neither of us is obligated to defend against historical objections. BOP is shared. But, if Pro insists on history as inherent to Monarchy (which he explicitly does), then Pro skews the BOP in his favor because Pro demands a Hobbesian Republic defend itself on grounds that are not inherent to it (namely, historical grounds). This is a very important point. If Pro thinks history is inherent to Monarchy, Pro also demands I defend my system on grounds that are not inherent. Pro himself states that my system has no historical grounds; history is not inherent to my system. Thus, Pro has skewed BOP: Pro requires my system defend itself on grounds not dictated by the resolution. Indeed, nothing expressed in Round 1 requires my system have historical evidence. To keep the BOP from being skewed, Pro must disregard all historical evidence, or Pro must concede the debate. Furthermore, the only way Pro can accept historical evidence is if it is not inherent, in which case it is irrelevant anyway, since the debate is explicitly about "inherent superiority. " This is the first of many catch-22s that Pro runs into in his argumentation. EpistemologyTo refute my argument, Pro proffers two ways to epistemically evaluate systems: “historical effects of their implementation, and the principle of private vs. public government. ” The first, as I have argued, is irrelevant. If Pro accepts it, Pro concedes the debate. The second sounds stronger, but it is just as deceptive. It is deceptive because “private vs. public” government is the subject of the debate, not some universal principle determining one system’s epistemological superiority to another. Pro never clarifies what this principle actually is, and that is precisely the point of my argument: that no such principle could ever be given or defined. Why does this matter? Because Pro has to prove “inherent superiority,” whereas I simply must negate it. By showing that there is no way, epistemology-wise, to adjudicate between two political systems, I negate the possibility of proving “inherent superiority,” thereby also negating Pro’s entire case. Because Pro’s only response to my argument is to provide two epistemical mechanisms, both of which Pro cannot accept without also conceding the debate, Pro thus concedes this argument, and with it, the debate. I want readers to recognize the the catch-22 Pro has created: if Pro argues through inherent "historical evidence," Pro concedes the debate by skewing the BOP. If Pro argues through non-inherent "historical evidence," Pro's argument is irrelevant. And if Pro does not argue through "historical evidence," Pro admits the impossibility of a definitive epistemological judgment, and also concedes the debate. Con's arguments are contradictory; it is a lose/lose situation in which either argument leads to the negation of the resolution. Democracy Index and Elective Monarchy Pro claims my system is no different than Elective Monarchy (and thus not Democracy). I responded to this in Round 3. My system includes "electoral process," "civil liberties," and "political participation. " We recognize that an "absolute authority" does not exclude these formal structures being built into the legal system. Pro's only new claim is that the difference is semantic. I disagree, although the operations of power are the same, there are still two huge differences. One, Elective Monarchy is privately owned government, whereas Hobbesian Republic is publicly owned government. This itself is the central premise animating most of Pro's argumentation. If Pro does not accept it, Pro concedes his entire case. Second, Elective Monarchy still implies heredity as a mechanism for investing power; my system always invests power through democratic election. Assasination and Political ChangePro still misses the point of my argument, and insists on defending assasination. Pro claims, “it's better to be rid of a dangerous and incompetent ruler, rather than have them serve continually, as democratically elected officials often do. ” As I explained in two previous rounds, Pro uses a legality not admitted within a Monarchic system. By presenting assassination as a factor that makes Monarchy better than Democracy, Pro concedes that on this point, Democracy is superior. This is because Pro implies that Monarchy has no "inherent" mechanism for political change; only "assasination," a legality outside the system, can produce political revolution. This is a very important point. It locates one of the "inherent" differences between a Hobbesian Republic and (Elective? ) Monarchy, which is that Hobbesian Republics can legally account for political change (through electoral process) whereas Monarchy cannot. Monarchy can only change through actions that are not inherent to the system. Thus, if Pro accepts the case of assasination, Pro demonstrates an inherent superiority in Democracy and concedes the debate. Again the same theme, Pro is in a lose/lose situation: whether Pro accepts assasination or not, Pro admits Democracy is inherently superior because Democracy accounts for political change inherently whereas Monarchy does not. Conclusion Pro claims I dropped his entire case. No, I did not concede to any of Pro’s case because I did not have to: 1) history was not a relevant factor in this debate; and 2) by showing that the operations of power in a Hobbesian Republic parallels Monarchy exactly, Pro's points are either irrelevant (because my system has their benefit too) or inherently flawed (a gap in superiority is impossible and contradictory if the systems operate the same). Pro never questioned my claim that Hobbesian Republic does in fact operate the same as Monarchy. The claim thus holds. Pro's premises and argumentation contains too many contradictions and lose/lose situations.