New Mars Forums

This is getting annyoing.
Slightly constitutional monarchy (Russia in the late XIX and early XX centuries) is as much a slavery as a democracy. I state that and I state that again and I think I already made my point why. You seem to be ignoring it.

A. A President has to be always with the people, people he is a leader od a democracy - country ruled by its people. Thus you almost always see everything a President does or doesn't do. A King, on the other hand, can be much more secret, although, of course, he has to reveal himself pretty often. THis makes him more mystical, people start to give him traits that he doesn't have. Some give him bad traits, some good. IF you think of him as sort of a savior, it's much easier to look up to him than to a president.
B. If you give him bad traits, you can blame him for everything. Although  it IS unproductive, I'd rather curse at Putin for a few hours and blame him for what Russia is right now than just not do anything and feel sorry for my country. I did curse at him many times, it made me feel better, but that did NOT stop me from making my own movement, and even encouraged me to do so.
C. Again, a King can hide his bad deeds and make it easier to praise him.

It is not a matter of life and death, but it does add a lot to the patriotism, which results in better military AND economy. As for the last part of it, I'm not even going to answer that. Look at the very top of my post.

Democracy is not perfect either, but you somehow are able to support your position. Every form of government has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it always has some very strong points and very weak points. The heir thing is one of the very weak points of monarchy. BUT as Peter I has ordered (and what was the rule until the Revolution), the heir is chosen by the Czar, and the age doesn't count anymore. Thus, if one of your sons/daughters is a bad Czar, you can always choose another one.

First of all, the age of assasinations passed. Great rulers are now rarely assasinated, and a fear of that should not be that strong in a ruler of today's world. And besides, if another Bloody SUnday occured today, the ruler of the country will be harshly punished by other countries and will loose the respect they had for him.

First of all, I hardly believe a powerful church will ever be organized on Mars. Second, as I said, today the church is less powerful. Peter I declared that the patriarchal system of the church (where it is ruled by one person: the patriarch) is bad and made a new system where it is ruled by many people (Sinod) and thus makes the church much weaker. By the XX century, the power of the church was feasible, although most of the Russians were very faithful believers. I mean, if your parents believed in the same faith since the IX century, I would think it would be easy for you to believe, too. As for those who believed in other faiths, non-orthodox churches (or other places of worship) were allowed in Imperial Russia.

Army in Imperial Russia consisted of peasants. If peasants are unhappy, the army is unhappy, and you will never have a willing army with unwilling peasants. Today, the Russian draft rule is this: if you don't go to college one year after graduation from school, you will be drafted. If you did go to college, you can be drafted in times of war. If you're not drafted until you are 27 years of age, you will never be drafted. WHo doesn't go to college? People who have neither money or good education. WHo are those? Peasants, only peasants of the modern world. Thus even today the army consists of peasants, and if they're unhappy, you wll not have a willing army. USA, where there is no draft, is a bad example, since it is a very powerful country by itself and does not need to draft people currently. THus most of the people who go to the army still get a good education.

That's offensive. I never said that "democracy sucks", although I certainly feel so. Sometimes.

Yes, but in today's world, a monarch will be risking by not satisfying people. And again, he would not be a tyrant while he knows for sure that a revolution will occur if people grow tired of him.

SO to sum this up, you just have to stop being stubborn and acknowledge that Monarchy is not necessarily (sp?) slavery. I know that every person has his own beliefs that he cannot change (I, personally, don't need reasons for why monarchy is good, but I can think of those reasons if needed), but please, believe me, Monarchy is NOT slavery. You are looking at monarchy of the medieval times. Those time passed. It's much different today.

Not really. I'm not saying worship. And I'm not saying forever. BUT giving the power to the most powerful-mided person would be emotionally good for the people, I think. Probably not absolute monarchy, but constitutional monarchy would be good. Even a monarchy where the King has only a bit more rights than the Queen of England would be good. That's just my theory. You may have yours.

No. I mean that by knowing who has the real power, the Monarh will be sort of forced by that thought to try and make the peasants happy.

Who says democracy is stable? Look at what's going on in France right now with the Le Pen guy. Yet look at Brunei where the Monarch is both the Sultan AND the Prime Minister. Brunei, by the way, is a very wealthy country. At least it's average GPA is 7 times greater than that of Russia.

Those men were uneducated. If the monarch declined what the guy was asking for usually meant that the guy could do everything by himself. BUT stuff like "My landlord is beating me" or "taking bribes" or "being mean" or "raping my wife" or whatever was not overlooked. If enough letters came that landlord was thrown to jail or even sentenced to death, or a person might be sent there to look if those guys weren't lying.

Well in this country you can't be a prostiute. Probably if you think more you'll get a good list of jobs you can't be in this country.

No. Their property was their property after the abolition of slavery. It could be taken away the same way it could be taken away in US. Peasants DID own stuff.

Sadly, it's almost not. If you tried to work hard, you could've easily gotten a lot of money, especially during the wars, since food was greatly needed.

That question was answered by my replies above.

Officially, yes. Physically, no. Closer to the end of the XIX century - beginning of the XX century, the Czar didn't really abuse his right in that way. For example, instead of just raising taxes to get money for War (as Peter I did), the government now issued bonds.

It does. There WERE some men who were not able to do anything about their income, especially those who were far away in the east. Yet after the industrialization of Russia, hand-made jobs were highly paid. In fact, some craftsmen made their way to the top very easily - first they earned enough money to ger themselves a little boy who would help. Very soon he could hire more men to help. Then he formed his own company. Then he collected enough money to buy himself  a title. It's almost the same thing people do today, except instead of a title they get a mansion or whatever.

Why communism won was because they said they'll divide the land between everyone evenly. With a lot of land, even poor peasants could easily get enough money. Also, they were envying the wealthy peasant class, so they were glad to see the wealthy man's land taken away.

That was answered in another answer.

All? No. The congress is not all people. And even though we elected them, they don't always make good laws.

No. Demonstrations were allowed in Monarchy. In fact, they were usually listened to.

THe slavery part I already discussed. And if they failed, that's their own problem, because if they tried they could. The working class was always had the most people. Besides, there was an escape from your so-called slavery - getting a title. THere were many ways to do it, only you needed to try hard enough.

Because it was perfect for the world of the 1890s. Not the 1910s. In the 1890s, no one even THOUGHT about a revolution of any kind, not even the peasants.

If a Doctor receives a patient with a new kind of a desease and that patient dies, is it the Doctor's fault?

Weren't workers in America working themselves to death, too? Wars? Wars happened, but it again was the problem of the new politics. The same reason WWI occured. The people received their right of speech in 1905.

If the Czar knew what was coming, it would've been enough.

P.S. Chill, you don't need to be agressive here.

P.P.S. You need to understand that Russians do not think the same way as Americans do. Communist leaders, for example, for were like Monarchs too. Even some orders of the president today are followed by the people.

SF authors is better. It's enough to have like 50 cities with the same name in the world. We don't need to trash Mars with them.

I'm talking about a good Monarchy. Before bloody sunday the Russians PRAYED for the Czar, they loved him, they thought of him as a person who they can depend on, who will support them when they need help. The Russian Empire's hymn said "God save the Czar... blah blah blah... Help the protector of the weak....". People thought exactly like that, because before you could write a letter to the Czar asking him to do something. For example, if the nobleman you were working for was mean and stuff, you could write a letter to the Czar and he would punish the nobleman. That really happened. In fact, most of the Day the Czar spent on reading these letters.

Now why am I comparing noblemen and peasants to wealthy/poor people? Because basically, if in Monarchy a peasant couldn't become a Czar, in Democracy, it's very hard for a poor person to become the president for one simple reason. They don't have the appropriate education. Most of them.

As for the only one family being the Royal Family... being a Czar is WAY harder than being a president and not everyone wished to be the Czar. I personally don't want to be that. I'd rather be his advisor or something. Nicholas II called his Crow his Cross. He said it was his burden and he had to do it although he did not wish to. All the Czars are very hard workers. Peter the Great slept for only 3-4 hours a day, sometimes he didn't sleep at all. He had that much work.

And as I said, poor men are NOT depended on the noblemen to represent their views. They can just write to the Czar. That is their God-given right.

Besides, not all noblemen had power. You could be wealthy and have many servants, but have no political power whatsoever. In order to gain it you had to climb up the political ladder. Which means you had to start out as some low-rank person and by hard work achieve higher-level ranks.

Vitte, for example, started out as an unknown railroad station manager. But when Nicholas II was traveling around the country, his train was going very fast and Vitte warned the Monarh that it's dangerous, because the rails are not completely finished yet. The Czar didn't listen and his train went off the tracks. The family barely survived. Nicholas remembered that Vitte warned him and raised him in ranks very quickly. Thus Vitte became the most important politician in the country. He issued some reforms and by the 1870s, Russia was one of the economically leading powers in Europe. Nicholas then started to dislike Vitte, because he seemed to outsmart the Czar. So the Czar "fired" Vitte but later was almost forced to bring him back. And then again he fired Vitte. But Vitte was strong enough to get back into politics.

And almost all politicians started out like that. They HAD to be low-ranked before they actually became important men.

So every class had its power in its own way. The Czar issued the rules. The politicians helped him. The noblemen made sure the peasants are working enough, but not too much. The noblemen also paid the tax from their wealth. The peasants "punished" the evil noblemen and as we could see also could overthrow the ruler if they disliked him. Thus the Czar had to make sure that everyone is happy.

Again, sorry, my post is a little disorganized. I'm just very tired of everything (I need to think and solve problems too much lately) so it's hard to me write something well-organized and well-written.

maybe it's just me, but I feel like saying "you're full of shit". Or, maybe, "Those sites are full of shit". No offense, but it's true.

Yes indeed. Although I never heard of mining steroids. Well anyway. I think colonizing asteroids is as pointless as colonozing comets, and almost as dangerous.

my list of favorites grows longer and longer every day. heh.

monarchy in England is not monarchy, actually. By monarchy I mean a givernment where the ruler has most of the power, if not all of the power. In England physically he almost has none but still stays an important political figure.

And what is KSR?

I support that. It would be hard to get all the "marsians" to the capitol city though.

If we develop artificial gravity by the time we colonize Mars I think children born on Mars should go through a few months of adjusting to higher gravity by slowly increasing it. And anyway, even those children and grown-ups who never leave Mars should go through this kind of a therapy every now and then to increase bone and muscle strength.

P.S. Sorry about all that bragging. Internet in Russia is very expensive and since I couldn't afford a magazine subscription, everything I knew was from books. When I came to US I was barely interested in science at all, and only now my interest in it came back. Thus I missed a lot of new inventions, etc.

umm, no. As long as mutations don't happen, your weight will be normal on Earth and very light on Mars. THeir weigth will not be measured, but their MASS will. Mass, as you know, is the same anywhere. Of course, it will take you some time to adjust to more gravity, but you certainly won't weight 180 pounds on Earth if your mass is not 180 pounds.

I know. I run one small monarchist site without any articles (yet) and it's already hard for me.

BTW, I have an idea: you should add a mars information site or something like that where you can collect info on Mars.