You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] bilog78 ago 

Thank you very much for offering your time to summarize, it was a huge help in avoiding wasting mine. As I said, I was extremely skeptical when I started reading (which is why the reason I stopped). I was skeptical about his premises about “self-evident truths” (which I have only seen used as an argument by people that need to project a bias they can't justify otherwise) as well as from his selection of examples, and it does seem indeed that my suspicions were well-founded.

There's several ways in which the arguments could be challenged, I'll just briefly present a few of them.

First of all, talking about monarchy and democracy in a general sense while actually implying specific forms of both isn't intellectually honest. Both forms of governments have very large degrees of variation with extremes that have very little in common outside of formal similarities: compare for example the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV to the modern constitutional monarchies still existing on the European continent; or the democracy in Switzerland with the one in, say, Venezuela (or even the USA, actually, which among the Western countries is arguably one of the worst).

This alone is sufficient to challenge almost every other point. For example, is he saying that the monarch is interested in the preservation and growth of the nation's capital because that's actually the monarch's own capital? That depends on the form of monarchy, and so does how that reflects on the rest of the nation (and the people within). Similarly, not all monarchs are such by blood, there is such a thing as elective monarchies, even absolute ones (the papacy being an excellent example of this). Also, while his criticism of the flaws of democracy isn't unfounded, it's also extremely myopic if he doesn't take into account the check and balance system coming from having separate executive, judicial and legislative power —probably because the USA he takes as example are an example of where they are the weakest. An excellent example of this is his obsession with bribery —again, not unfounded, but the USA is pretty unique in having essentially istitutionalized bribery with the lobbying mechanism.

His other points are just as weak. Degradation of society being something related to democracy is also a laughable claim. Protestantism started specifically because of how corrupt and degenerate the papacy (which is a monarchy) had become. Degradation of society is just part of the natural cycle of society's evolution. Likewise, the idea of corrupt functionaries being an issue in democracy but not in monarchies is also extremely ignorant (both pre-revolution France and pre-revolution Russia are extremely good example of this).

All in all, I remain unimpressed and unconvinced. Worse many if not all of his anti-democratic arguments have been discussed by others in better form, with the specific aim of improving the democratic process itself, with more solid debating bases than just cherry-picked examples.