A monarchy is a good thing

Preface: PRO has made his case in his ROUND 2 by addressing an issue which he believes, is the key thing that causes people to “dislike monarchism”. But the logic that supports his arguments, is faulty and has many errors. I will be using this round to address and rebut his arguments exhaustively and will include a few arguments of my own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opening Arguments: A monarchy is “a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead”.[1] Now summing up PRO’s Round 2, he has claimed that: Monarchs are unfairly discriminated. He argues that the privilege of people being made monarchs because of their birth is just as similar as celebrities or millionaires who become so, because of their birth. He claims that this is ‘human nature’ and shouldn’t be considered a violation of equality. Hence he concludes that it is unfair to discriminate monarchs alone based on this aspect, since it happens all around us. This conclusion that PRO has drawn though is erroneous and I’ll illustrate why. Let’s consider two acts of a person getting killed. Let the first act be suicide where the individual ‘kills’ himself and the second act be murder where he kills someone else. So if we were to judge which act is more heinous the obvious answer would be murder. But why is that? It is because murder conflicts with the interest of another person entirely, where you take away another individual’s right to live, whereas suicide is an act where the person’s action only affects himself. Thus, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that murder is an act that is several times more heinous than suicide. So what does this have to do with PRO’s case? Well we can keep the problem of another person’s interest being conflicted as reference and view the scenario we currently have in hand. A celebrity or a millionaire no matter how popular or rich do not present the problem, of their decisions conflicting the interest of other people or at least it would be fair to assume that this impact would be negligible as when compared to the decisions taken by a monarch. A monarch has the privilege of wielding an immense amount of power and has the authority over the lives of millions of people this, beyond any doubt, diminishes any and all power that a said celebrity or a millionaire would have. Having wealth and popularity is one thing but having the power to decide the fate of a nation consisting of millions of people, just because of birth, is entirely another. Thus, monarchism IS a violation of equality. A monarch wields such power that it destroys social equality entirely. The only requirement to become a monarch is ‘birth’ and the ruling of the country pretty much depends on the character of the person born. Thus, in simple words, the future of how the country is going to be ruled depends on how the character of the person born in the position would be. Monarchy also denies other potential people, who might be more capable than the monarch in ruling a nation, the chance to become the head of the country. This primarily, is unfair, since equality deserves maximum importance in a just society. And secondly, the system values ‘chance’ instead of ‘merit’ and hence significantly deters the progress of a nation by not allowing capable people to head the nation. PRO himself has conceded that “Many royals would be just as happy without the crown” and that they are very much forced to be in their position. This just goes to show the ineffectiveness of the system in choosing a proper ruler for the country. With that I conclude my case for round 2. I will bring more arguments to the table in the upcoming rounds. Over to you PRO. Ref: 1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;