Monarchy and Democracy

I'll respond to my opponents most recent rebuttal, then give key voters. My opponent brings up a new argument that I've already lost this debate because I've never given a weighing mechanism for comparing democratic and monarchic schools of thout, but unfortunately this argument fails to advance when one takes a look at the debate--I already did establish a mechanism to evauluate the systems with; the historical effects of their implementation, and the principle of private vs. public government. This could just as easily be turned against him anyway, my opponent claims that solving this competition is imppossible because there is a fundamental disagreement, and then tells us to prefer Hobbes. Yet, there is also a fundamental disagreement between a Hobbesian republic and a Monarchy--that is, after all, the entire basis of this debate. My Opponent drops my accusation of skewing the BOP, by merely stating that the debate is a purely theoretical issue, well perhaps I was mistaken but I was under the assumption that we could only evaluate a systems inherent merits if we look to the implementation of that system after all, inherent means: "involved in the constitution or essential character of something". He drops the most important part though, which is that I do have to defend my system from practical historical objections, and he does not. Unequal BOP= Con loses. Con completely drops the Democracy Index evidence showing that his convoluted idea of a democracy is anything but, remember that fundamentally democracy is the rule of the people (which is why direct democracy is sometimes referred to as pure democracy[1]) and thus he's not actually advocating democracy. .the purpose of this debate. He essentially drops my turn, elective monarchies have historically existed and are basically his system. The only difference is rhetoric, he only offers the distinction of "monarchies have Kings, Republics have absolute authorities". Using Cons logic, Shahs, Emperors, Grand Dukes, and Pharaohs are not Monarchs, but instead "absolute authorities" because they aren't called king. The fact of the matter is that Con hasn't explained any fundamental difference, only a semantic one, between a Hobbesian Republic and an Elective Monarchy and thus has already lost his advocacy. Con brings up a good point in saying that Monarchs are, after all, people and thus subject to the same harms that mobs are. The problem with his logic is that he doesn't take into account self interest and deindividuation. For self interest, you can look to all three of my contentions, 2 and 3 in particular which have gone undisputed throughout the entire round. Deindividuation is basically where individuals in mobs are more likely to do irrational things because they are anonymous and do not have to face social consequences for their actions. Thus individuals voting in Mobs are more likely to act on irrational and biggotted impulses. Since politicians require the support of the mob to stay in power, they will satisfy the bigotry and ignorance of the mob. I gave historical examples of this, all of which he dropped. Con says "so what? " to the historical effects of democracy, essentially conceding the debate. If I said that socialism is inherently better than capitalism, it would be perfectly justified to bring up socialisms failed track record to show its inherent flaws. He seems to confuse inherent with theoretical, when they obviously are not synonyms. Con drops my attack on collective security by simply dismissing it as an Economic law that has "nothing to do with 'security'". However it does! Anything that has a cost is related to economics, and a governmental monopoly on justice/security applies to this! I cited Hoppe to show that our rights have continually deteriorated and he made no response. So the dropped empirics prove my point. Con also drops my attack on the social contract theory. A contract has to be voluntary, or else it is, by defintion, not a contract. He concedes that Hobbes government is involuntary, which obviously makes it not a contract. As U. S. history shows, constitutionally limitied governments are an idealistic fantasy. His only attacks on my arguments fall. He tries to turn the assasination argument, but the point remains that it's better to be rid of a dangerous and incompetent ruler, rather than have them serve continually, as democratically elected officials often do. I never argued that assassination was "central to the system", but rather my point was that one way or another, dangerous monarchs get taken out. Nowhere was it said that assassination was a legal action--Con is just attacking a strawman at this point. He drops my response to his rebuttal on the war argument. Voters1. My case was almost entirely dropped. Whether you personally believe my arguments or not, Con has conceded that: Monarchs will avoid unprofitable wars, wars between monarchs are less brutal and deadly, monarchs can marry their family to other rulers to avoid war, monarchs are less likely to break treaties, monarchs will not rack up huge amounts of "public debt" , democrats cannot manage an economy, monarchs implement less taxes, monarchs don't change to fiat money and rob their populace via inflation, monarchs rid their territory of non roducing people and democracy creates an incentive towards non production, democracies are more tyrannical than monarchies, democratic officials are corrupt by nature, and that a King will uphold the rule of law because he has to maintain his legitimacy. So, you can garner from this debate that Monarchy= Less war destruction, better ciplomacy, better economies, less taxes, less "public debt", less inflation, less tyranny, and more law and order. My opponent has yet to even explain a single real world benefit from his system, and has no impact anywhere near enough to outweigh these conceded impacts. 2. Con has no offense. He's advocating an elective Monarchy, so any advantages flow to my side. He dropped the democrac index card, and the logic behind his system not being an actual democracy (even the WORD democracy is contrary to his system. Demo- Greek root for people, Cracy- root for government). Thus he has established absolutely no advocacy, and has lost the debate. 3. He hasn't advocated his system in any historical form, and ths skews the burden of proof. I had to defend monarchy from historic attacks, but he hasn't had to defend Hobbesian democracy from historic attacks because it's never been implemented. This violates the shared burden of proof and makes him lose the debate. ConclusionI have proven multiple advantages from a monarchial system, my opponent has not proven one single benefit to his other than that his sovereign follows the "Will of the people"--a non-existent advantage that has been turned. He has conceded to most of my arguments, and therefore you must vote Pro. Thanks to my opponent for his participation, I'm extremely greatful to have the chance to debate him, I can tell he will soon become one of the top debaters on this site. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...