Monarchy and Democracy

Pro has misunderstood/misrepresented my position. Before addressing Pro's case, I'm going to provide another argument for my case, then I will systematically negate Pro's claims/arguments. Argument 2: This is a debate about which system of government is "inherently superior," Monarchy or Democracy. That said, it is not hard to see that the debate is a non-starter. Epistemologically, the vocabularies, premises, and arguments of Monarchic systems of thought and Democratic systems of thought are on a par, each one an orthodoxy to itself, fully equipped with dogma, criteria for evidence, founding texts, exemplary achievements (practically and theoretically), heroes, villains, goals, agendas, and all the rest. If someone believes in the premises of a Monarchic system of thought prior to this debate, then they will conclude that Pro is correct. On the other hand, if someone believes the premises of Democratic systems of thought, then they will conclude I am correct. No mechanism exists (and this is one of the great insights of Hobbes) for adjudicating between two competing orthodoxies, and in this case, the orthodoxies are Monarchy vs. Democracy. It's the same problem between two religious systems of thought, say, between Christianity and Judaism – one puts its faith in Jesus, the other does not. It is a fundamental disagreement, and there is no way to determine which one is more correct than the other. So, again, I repeat my claim that the debate is a non-starter, epistemology-wise. Pro cannot demonstrate that Monarchy is an "inherently superior" system of thought to Democracy. That said, my burden as Con is to argue against Pro's resolution. Pro argues that "Monarchy is an inherently superior system of thought to Democracy," so I am arguing that that is NOT the case. As such, I am able to make my case by simply noting that there is no epistemological mechanism for determining that Monarchy IS "inherently superior." If Pro cannot provide such an epistemological mechanism, which I claim Pro cannot, then the debate is over, Pro has lost. Response to Pro's Claims: In his first paragraph, Con argues that I am under the "misguided assumption" that Pro advocates "authoritarianism," and that on the contrary, Pro believes "Princely rulers" are "less oppressive" than Democracies. "Authoritarianism" has nothing to do with oppression; authority denotes how much power a ruler has over subjects, not the degree to which that ruler chooses to oppress, constrain, or in any other way limit the civil liberties of subjects. Pro's conflation of "authority" and "oppression" is flawed, as is the conclusion of his argument that I am "misguided." Pro argues I "skew" the burden of proof by advocating a system that "has yet to be implemented." But this has nothing to do with the burden of proof, which is arguing which "system" is "inherently superior," which is a purely theoretical issue, not a practical issue. The key term here is "inherent," which means that the system is superior not because it has been proven to be superior historically, but because theoretically, it makes reasonable sense that it would be superior were it implemented. As such, I have not violated the rules of the debate, and again Pro's argument and conclusions are flawed. Pro argues that I am not "advocating a democracy in any true form," because according to Pro, my Hobbesian Republic does not include an "electoral process," "civil liberties," and "political participation." Pro has completely misunderstood my argument, however, as nowhere in my formulation of a Hobbesian Republic have I excluded any of these ideals. On the contrary, they are the very premises I used in my argument to establish the "absolute authority" of the "head-of-state" that will preside over the Republic. Pro has misrepresented my position, and again, is simply wrong. Pro claims that my system is not a "representative" democracy, but is actually an "oppressive elective monarchy." Nonetheless, Pro provides no argument to support his claim other than the historical reality of "oppressive elective monarchy." As I argued above, Pro misunderstands my position, and that is the reason he conflates my system with an "oppressive elective monarchy." To this I say, so what? There is no reason a "representative democracy" cannot also be an "oppressive elective monarchy," making Pro's argument a non-starter. Furthermore, these are two very different systems, something Pro would realize with a better understanding of what a Hobbesian Republic is (monarchies have Kings, Republics have absolute authorities). The difference is in the way power is invested in the ruler epistemically. Thus, I dismiss his claim until an argument (not a conflation of two DIFFERENT systems) is provided that suggests a Hobbessian Republic is not a representative democracy. Pro argues that "elections" prevent a good ruler because "mobs are always incompetent and insane." What are mobs composed of? Persons. What is a Monarch? A person. Is there any difference between a Monarch as person and the persons in a mob? Not that I know of. Given Pro's own premises, we can conclude Monarch's are "incompetent and insane." Further, "elections" derive their value from the will/interests of the subjects; heredity, however, is an empty formalism divorced from the will/interests of subjects. Pro attempts to dismiss democracies because of historical results; to this I say, so what? This debate is a theoretical debate about which system is "inherently superior," not a debate about which system has fared better historically. Pro's recourse to history has no place in this debate, unless it is to make a theoretical point, not a point about history. Pro argues that the idea of "collective security" "inherently fails." Pro argues that, because it is "economic law that once a single entity gains a monopoly of a good," the "quality will fall." As "economic law," this has nothing to do with "security." Pro attempts to translate this law into "security," by arguing that when a "single entity," the "sovereign," gains authority, "security will fail." As you can see, however, the translation from "economic law" to "security law" makes no sense, and has no justification other than Pro's whimsy. Pro invokes Hoppe, but this is also a non-starter as Hoppe traffics in very different premises than Hobbes. The point is irrelevant: given the premises provided by Hobbes, "collective security" is an inherently coherent idea, and the conclusion a logical inevitability of Hobbes's premises. Pro has not shown otehrwise. Pro argues against "social contract theory" because it is a "contract" between "two parties," and therefore, "unless the contract is amended for each citizen," it is "forcing someone into a contract." At no point does Hobbes say anything about "forcing" someone into a contract. Pro clearly does not understand what "two parties" admits. I will clarify that next round if Pro does not. Until then, I conclude Pro's argument is weak and imprecise; Pro assumes involuntary agreement when neither myself nor Hobbes say anything about involuntary agreement. On the issue of "assassination," Pro completely misses my point. Assasination of a King is treason, and as such, is outside the legal framework of a Monarchic system. By attempting to incorporate "assassination" as part of the system, Pro is talking about a different system, a system in which assassination is assumed as a legal action. Pro is thereby admitting the failure of a Monarchic system to institute social change legally, and therefore the inferiority of Monarchic systems in general. The issue is not the effect of assassination, but the fact that Pro has made recourse to a legality outside the Monarchic system to justify the system. In doings so, Pro betrays his own case, as he admits the inadequacy of a Monarchic system to legally account for an action that Pro argues is central to the system. That is just bad reasoning.