Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-04-30 16:39:40

Mars is a planet. Yes, it's smaller than Earth, but I don't think that you can have one country governing it. In my opinion, Mars is like a second chance for humanity. It's a chance for those who can't get what they want. I'm a monarchist. To bring back monarchy me and other monarchists will have to do lots of work, spend lots of time, maybe even try to organise a revolution and still we might fail. So why not take all the different monarchists from different countries and form our country on Mars. Other people might try to do what they want.

Of course, I don't think a separate Marsian country is bad. I think that it just shouldn't take up the whole planet.

I also think that it depends on the people who will live there. For early colonists, who painstakingly try to build a new home, monarchy will be great - they'll need one sole ruler who they can look up to and whom they can sort of worship. When they're settled, monarchy will not be needed - they'll need democracy, probably. Maybe not, but whatever.

And finally, it's useless to discuss government on Mars right now, since it's not colonized yet. Right now any form of government seems fine until we see what colonists on Mars feel.

Tom Jolly · 2002-05-05 12:31:57

Have to agree with you; whoever gets there first and lives there is going to establish whatever government they feel like. Even KSR showed this happening in his books. Sure, eventually they formed their world-government, but initially it was lots of little groups running their own home-grown governments based on their personal ideologies. The only way the KSR world-government with a Duma and Senate will happen is if all us Mars fanatics get there before anyone else does. (or, in your case, a Monarchy...but having lived in England for a few years, I can't say I like that idea much). Considering the level of corruption in the US government nowadays, a Duma looks mighty attractive.
Tom

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-05 12:45:40

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?

Tom Jolly · 2002-05-05 12:54:42

KSR is Kim Stanley Robinson, refering to the Red, Green, Blue Mars series. It's very, very political, and even more geological. Not a light read, but some excellent ideas and a good tour of Mars. And, true, England is not a pure Monarchy, since they have the Parliament, but it still has the whole "Royalty supported by the taxes of the masses" to deal with, and boy, do they have some taxes. If Americans had to pay a 17.5 percent VAT, they'd have another tea party, except they'd be throwing politicians in the bay.
Tom

Cobra Commander · 2002-05-10 22:42:43

It seems reasonable to assume that the first government on Mars is going to be whatever the sponsors of the mission want, followed shortly by whatever the colonists decide they want if they can work up the nerve to tell the powers that be back on Earth to perch and twirl.

Aetius · 2002-05-15 18:34:58

Double post. My bad.

Aetius · 2002-05-15 18:35:36

I also favor constitutional monarchy (balanced by a democratically elected legislature). I truly detested Kim Stanley Robinson's idea of an independent one-world government on Mars, as envisioned in his excellent "Mars Trilogy" (well, 4 books really). The story was great, but it just seemed like his dubious attempt to vindicate 1960's Leftism. The entire idea that it is possible to 'improve' human nature is bogus, in my opinion. I'd rather see the colonization of Mars as an extension of the corporate globalization of Earth. Kind of like a "McWorld...Part Deux".

I think Mars should become a patchwork quilt of independent societies...loyal to Earth. I'd rather be governed from Earth than have a bunch of KSR's 22nd-century Bolshevik wannabes try to 'improve' my society.

clark · 2002-05-16 09:14:25

I am at a loss when I try to understand why someone would advocate for elected represenatives to develop the law upon whihc we would all live under, yet wants an unelected Executor, who would be responsible for enforcing the laws. WHy do yuo feel comfortable with electing legislators, but not Executives?

How can the idea of equality, and equal application of the law apply exsist in a system that instutionilizes the idea that there are some who are fit to rule, and there are others who are fit only to be ruled?

A monarchy, in any form, is the living embodiment of "class", the premise being that there are those who are above the "ordinary" man. Is this a worthrwhile concept that should be perpetuated? If you hold that it is, you are implicitly supporting the idea that irregardless of MERIT, or ability, there are only certain opportunites that are available to those, solely depending on who gave birth towho and when.

If you argue for only a ceremonial role for a Monarch, how do you justify the idea that Society as a whole is responsible for maintaing the welfare of a family, and their prodigy, for the sole reason that they are who they are- in this instance, equality no longer exsist among all people- the simple creation of this instution establishes that there are those who, through no proof of merit, are ENTITLED to compensation.

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-16 16:25:10

although democracy does sound better, it's a bit different - the wealthy class rules the world. Still, though, you can become one of that class if you try.

In Monarchy, the Monarh is a respected man, loved by his country. Al least in Russia it was so until 1905 (the Bloody Sunday). Although the population is still divided into classes, there is a great possibility of succeeding. For example, shortly after Alexander II, in Russia, restrictions as to a rank of a person did not exist. Yet, any person with the rank of Leutenant or higher was supposed to be a noble. Thus any man successful enough to be raised into the rank of Leutenant became a noble. The noblemanship was not passed onto his decendants and neither did this man receive any special title, but I think Generals could pass on their noblemanship (I'm not sure though) and usually by that time they received some kind of a special medal from the Czar giving them a title.

The only problem with that was that a non-noble could not achieve anything without going to the army. Still, once he's a noble the doors of court and civilian positions were open to him. Then he could achieve the same by climbing the ladder.

Of, course, poor men still will have a much harder time getting what they want, but so it is in democracy. Rich people can easily pay for tuitition to good schools, use their influence. Poor people can't.

It still mostly depends on the people. THe European monarhs were very mean to their people. The Czars, on the other hand, were not as brutal. In fact, only two Czars are most famous for their strictness - Ivan IV the Terrible and Peter I the Great. Still, they were so mean out of need - the people were at their highest level of "illegalness". And Russians are used to following ONE man, while other countries dislike giving others that power. Still, I think, colonists in space will need one man to look up to, at least for some time.

Hope that all made sense, I'm not in an english-writing mood right now.

clark · 2002-05-16 16:39:44

In Monarchy, the Monarh is a respected man, loved by his country.

Not quite. In a Monarchy, the Executive of the State is granted his title by God and by the right of Birth. The attitude of the subjects is made meaningless, they exsist for the Monarch to rule. The Monarch is given his title and power based on who he is, not his ability.

The only problem with that was that a non-noble could not achieve anything without going to the army. Still, once he's a noble the doors of court and civilian positions were open to him. Then he could achieve the same by climbing the ladder.

Could he become Czar? A monarchy is inherently EXCLUSIVE of others.

Of, course, poor men still will have a much harder time getting what they want, but so it is in democracy.

You are mixing economics with politcs. In a monarchy, poor men are dependant upon the rich noblemen to represent their views, yet the rich noblemen have no need to represent their views. In a Democracy however, all individuals, irregardless of social status, wealth, or education have the same weight in speaking on a particular issue. My say is just as valid as the "nobleman"- yet in a Monarchy, the "noblemen" by right of birth alone (not the Russian Leutinant example) has a greater say in how the Society will function.

Still, I think, colonists in space will need one man to look up to, at least for some time.

Why?

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-19 13:04:23

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.

clark · 2002-05-20 10:53:59

I'm talking about a good Monarchy.

Of course you are. What about those "bad" monarchies? Why allow that possibility?

People thought exactly like that, because before you could write a letter to the Czar asking him to do something.

Depending on the Monarchs lasting benevolance seems a bit short sighted considering the historical experience of concentrating legeslative and executive power in one individual. Is the Monarch required to read the letters? Is the Monarch required to even Act?

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.

No, in a Monarchy, the peaseant can NEVER, without possibility, ever be King. In a democracy, ANYONE can be President, even if they are poor, the possibility still remains open to them if they wish to pursue it. A monarchy implies that there are those who are special by virtue of birth alone.

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.

So you are advocating for a system that precludes certain people from a position they may want, and forces certain people into a position they may not want- why not simply make it open to everyone so those who wish to do the job are able, and those who do not, do not have to- letting the rest of Society decide who is BEST for the job?

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.

But none of the nobility or the Czar himself is required to represent the will of the people- the peopel exsist only to be ruled, to follow the dictates of their masters- that is what the system you advocate for IS!

Thus the Czar had to make sure that everyone is happy.

No. The Czar had to make the people who maintained his ability to rule through the control of force happy. As long as he had sufficient strength to crush any opposition to his rule, there is no need to even consider the "peasants".

Aetius · 2002-05-21 20:23:27

Clark, those were great responses!

I have always had a soft spot for monarchy, partly because it so conservative by nature. Strong monarchy, while institutionalizing class distinctions, would also be a protection against would-be social engineers.

Another point in favor of monarchy relates to the cohesiveness of society. Shall our new Martian society be a mosaic or a melting pot? If it's to become a melting pot, then someone's going to be pressured to surrender much of their cultural identity...and they might be very unhappy about it. If instead it becomes a mosaic, what becomes the focus of loyalty? It can't be the dominant ethnic group or language...there probably wouldn't be one. Here in the USA, our allegiance is to the Constitution. But our own Civil War proves that in times of great societal upheaval, the allegiance to ideas written on a piece of paper are often not as strong as the personal bonds of loyalty between men.

A mosaic paradigm of society would be at a disadvantage when its disparate elements begin to see each other as enemies (Yugoslavia, anyone?). Even in the USA, we swear loyalty to the Constitution, but almost every citizen speaks English. What happens that's no longer the case?

Your case against monarchy is somewhat compelling. Perhaps I'd be more satisfied with an elected Chief Executive who serves a decade-long term of office, so they can make plans for more than 4 years in advance. Plus enough pomp and ceremony to make the House of Windsor jealous.

clark · 2002-05-22 07:46:16

Strong monarchy, while institutionalizing class distinctions, would also be a protection against would-be social engineers.

Wouldn't the institutionalizing of class distincitions BE social engineering?

Another point in favor of monarchy relates to the cohesiveness of society.

I understand the premise you are getting at, however, it seems to be a bit misguided. The concept of societal cohesiveness is not based on the form of government that is is used to execute the Will of the people. Social cohesion is the result of similar goals, desires, beliefs, history, etc among the people who populate Society. This is demonstrated by the myriad of governments that exsist successfully, and these same governments have people who have developed well formed "social cohesion". In the instances where social cohesion breaks down, as in your example of Yugoslavia, it is the result of disparate views between the people- competing groups (unfortunetly identified by ethnicity) form within the larger group of the whole. It is these two competing groups, that fight over the dead carcass of the original group.

If instead it becomes a mosaic, what becomes the focus of loyalty?

In terms of a Monarch, is this really the best "focus" for a socieitel cohesion? Would you be agreeable to the idea of Monarchy if we put a face to the concept of Monarchy as presented?

Imagine a rally of children wearing black arm bands with Swastikas, imagine all of these children, who have informed the State to the private activities and thoughts of their parents. Imagine these children swearing an oath of loyalty, not to an ideal, not to a way of life, but to a Person. Imagine swearing loyalty to Hitler and THEN tell me that a monarchy is still a good idea with the Focus on an individual, and not on the People.

Even in the USA, we swear loyalty to the Constitution, but almost every citizen speaks English. What happens that's no longer the case?

Nothing. The language we speak is not related to the shared ideals upon which the United States was founded. How would a Monarchy prevent or mitigate this?

Perhaps I'd be more satisfied with an elected Chief Executive who serves a decade-long term of office, so they can make plans for more than 4 years in advance.

interesting, but what about those individuals who were not allowed to vote for the Chief Executive? Imagine that at 20, you are granted the right to vote- yet the last Presidential (chief executive) election occured when you were 19. Do you think it is acceptable for individuals to conceivably wait 10 years before they get a say in who represents their nation (or whatever)? If you say yes, then how would we deal with the disenfranchisement caused by those who feel they are left out of the process becuase of their age?

HeloTeacher · 2002-05-23 09:41:34

Comparing the regime of Hitler to what these guys are supporting as a monarchy is quite a stretch. From where I've been sitting the last few years, American style democracy is at least as distasteful as any monarchies I've seen.

Given the opportunity to emigrate to a new frontier on Mars I'd be inclined to fight, tooth and nail, any intrusion of an old Earth-based political system. Every system that places control in the hands of a select group is corruptable. Current politicians are the epitome of this corruption.

The very lack of a centralized provision of power and other necessities and the development of stand-alone habitations will result in the ability to live without control by some self-absorbed twit who is paid by levying some tax/tithe/theft from the people he governs.

Mars is an opportunity to escape central government, not create a new one.

clark · 2002-05-23 10:26:02

Comparing the regime of Hitler to what these guys are supporting as a monarchy is quite a stretch.

Not if we are discussing social cohesion and the idea of focusing loyalty onto an individual. I used Hitler as an example becuase it draws a very distinct picture of what it means to utilize an individual as the center of a State. Granted, I am presenting an extreme, but it is an extreme that is possible under the system that was presented.

From where I've been sitting the last few years, American style democracy is at least as distasteful as any monarchies I've seen.

A poitn of clarification, America is not, nor has ever been, a democracy. It is a Republic- it is an important distinction. The closest individuals get to a true democracy is in local referendums. I also find it disturbing that you can compare American style government with a Monarchy- ours is a merit based system where individuals express their Will by choosing the leaders who will make decisions for them- at all points in the system we are allowed to be heard, with definite accountabilities deliniated- in a monarcy, no such system exsists.

Given the opportunity to emigrate to a new frontier on Mars I'd be inclined to fight, tooth and nail, any intrusion of an old Earth-based political system.

I can understand your sentiment, but I cannot understand your reason. All of our progress, religious, scientific, economic, and poilitcal are all the results of building off the lessons of the past, and using what worked- it seems you may be suggesting that there is nothing worthwhile in our current systems- is this the case?

Every system that places control in the hands of a select group is corruptable.

True, that is why a monarchy is so bad. Yet, in our system of government in the US, power resides in the people- How and wether or not they exercise this right is a seperate issue.

Current politicians are the epitome of this corruption.

An unbsubstaniated opinion that has been repeated by anyone who has been dissatisfied with something they do not agree with. A better question is why people tolerate such corruption at all.

The very lack of a centralized provision of power and other necessities and the development of stand-alone habitations will result in the ability to live without control by some self-absorbed twit who is paid by levying some tax/tithe/theft from the people he governs.

Yet the whole idea of living in a vacum neccessitates a strong centralized power in order to maintain a stable system. Everything must be generated, created, or transported from somewhere- how much freedom can you allow when a wrong door opened kills everyone? How much local freedom can be allowed if air production, water production, and energy production must all be planned for, coordinated, and implemented into an overall fail-safe system.

Things like public congregation may be limited due to saftey concerns and over-taxing life-support systems. Firearms are a virtual impossibility in a pressurized environment exsisting in vacum. Population growth must be planned and controled, since everything on Mars must be planned in advance out of neccessity- having too many people means EVERYONE dies, so the issue of reproduction now falls into pubblic domain- which requires those individuals to oversee the compliance with the groups decisions (read beaucracy and central government). Then there is the issue of individuals being free to leave whenever they want- what if the stations only water purification expert wants to leave, but in doing so, the base would be denied the expertise neccessary to effect repairs and maintence of water production- since their leaving without a suitable replacement would endanger everyone else, wouldn't that neccessitate governemnt intervention in order to keep everyone else alive? Here again we see limits placed on freedom and liberty due to the environmental constraints imposed by space colonization.

rhw007 · 2002-05-23 19:51:59

Everyone has seemed to presume Mars is currently unoccupied territory and belongs to humanity. We actually do not KNOW this. Mainstream science may have it has the current paradigm, but recently in geological history the paradigm of the day was that humanity was:

1.

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2021-12-06 09:30:26)

clark · 2002-05-24 08:15:27

Everyone has seemed to presume Mars is currently unoccupied territory and belongs to humanity.

Are you aware of any evidence that would make this general assumption invalid?

We've finally thrown off the shackles of all the above but the first and strongest of them all. It may happen finally, on Mars.

And then again, we may not. Aren't you really trying to exchange one assumption for another?

Give a High School kid a reason to care...a spacewalk.

Great idea. I checked the website, and you know what, you lost me at the "requirement" for graduation was to go on a spacewalk. I agree with the lofty goal of discovering that spiritual connection...blah, blah, blah. However, the fact of the matter is that it is an act of the State requiring a particular behavior to teach a certain philosphy or belief- it is wrong to do this.

It also asscoiates the act of a space walk with a "requirement" to get something that is economicaly neccessary today, or even for post-graduate studies. Why not change the emphasis from one of cumpulsorary behavior to one of reward? Allow the OPPORTUNITY for a trip to space for academic excellence- it changes the emphasis and makes the act of visiting space a reward, not a punishment.

What's wrong with those people who do not want to go on a space walk? Nothing. Yet the system advocated on that website PUNISHES those who wish to not space walk.

I like space, but I recognize there are those who do not- neither one of us is correct, neither is wrong. We should ALL be wary of ANY ideas that take away choices from us.

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-24 22:20:38

Of course you are. What about those "bad" monarchies? Why allow that possibility?

I did not say we NEED monarchy as a fact. I was just saying that in a new Marsian society people might like to look to some hero-like person who will lead them for some time until they settle and get adjusted to the environment.

Is the Monarch required to read the letters? Is the Monarch required to even Act?

Yes. He is. Otherwise he's risking to be overthrown. You must not forget that although peasants have low poilitical power, they DO HAVE the greatest physical power. I'm sure after the lesson of so many revolutions the Monarchs will be willing to do that. Still, it's up to the Monarch to decide whether the person really needs what he asks. Usually though, it doesn't require much thinking.

So you are advocating for a system that precludes certain people from a position they may want, and forces certain people into a position they may not want- why not simply make it open to everyone so those who wish to do the job are able, and those who do not, do not have to- letting the rest of Society decide who is BEST for the job?

That is a strong point in your post, I must agree. Again, as I said, anyone except the Czar had the possibility to become the "top guy". There were many proffessions available to them, you know.

In fact, most of the peasants in Russia WERE wealthy. Those who were NOT were just lazy to do anything. That is actually true. Most of the peasants prefered blaming the czar for everything. Those who worked hard had a good amount of money, probably higher comparing to the farmers of today. Those men were the blood of the economy. The lazy men were not.

But none of the nobility or the Czar himself is required to represent the will of the people- the peopel exsist only to be ruled, to follow the dictates of their masters- that is what the system you advocate for IS!

Czar is the only master they had since the abolition of slavery by Alexander III. Again, those poor men were lazy and they had to follow their land owners' will because those people gave them money. Wealthy peasants, on the other hand, were independent, and again, had no master except the Czar.

Now if you take a plain normal person in a democracy. Doesn't he has to follow the orders of the president+congress?

No. The Czar had to make the people who maintained his ability to rule through the control of force happy. As long as he had sufficient strength to crush any opposition to his rule, there is no need to even consider the "peasants".

Yes there is. How did the peasants overthrow the government in 1917 then? Every soldier in the army was drafted from the non-nobles. Nobles were already made officers. Thus, without peasants happy, the country will have no:

1. Work Force
2. Military Force
---> 3. Money and Land

As said in the encyclopedia I have (a very good one, too, they talk about history without giving preference to one side or the other), Russia forged and polished its government system for a long time, reaching almost total perfection. It was sort of not the Czar's fault. This worker uprising thing happened for the first time in the world, almost. Right now it DOES seem obvious what to do if that kind of a problem arises. Back then it wasn't. The workers weren't really opressed, they were just tired of working and working and working and war and war and war and no rights of speech.

A light constitution had to be given out earlier. Much earlies. Only a light one. That would've been enough. The right of speech that was given out to the people in 1905 did have some effect - it postponed the revolution until 1917.

clark · 2002-05-28 05:50:54

I was just saying that in a new Marsian society people might like to look to some hero-like person who will lead them for some time until they settle and get adjusted to the environment.

A society of sycophants? Hero worship aside, is this really a credible reason to instutite a form of government that is predicated on a master-slave relationship? While I may be able to accept the rationale that individuals may wish for a "shining leader" while they become acclamated to Mars, isn't it a bit of a jump to instutite this desire as the means to enact public policy?

Otherwise he's risking to be overthrown. You must not forget that although peasants have low poilitical power, they DO HAVE the greatest physical power.

So you would have a society that violently changes administartions? In the system you are suggesting, dissent from the Exeutive, ie the Monarch, is made through usurption of the crown by another who will make the populace more content- wouldn't the wiser course be to instuttite a system whereby people can peacefully affect a change without having to resort to physical force?

I'm sure after the lesson of so many revolutions the Monarchs will be willing to do that.

So you assume that future monarchs might learn something from the historical precedents of their peers- why should that be? The history of monarchs stretches for millenia- yet we see the same corruption and despotism develop time and time again. Shouldn't we demonstrate our knowledge of previous experiences by avoiding systems that are historically unstable?

Still, it's up to the Monarch to decide whether the person really needs what he asks.

Who is a better judge of what is needed by you, you, or someone else?If we are all human, and all equal (more or less) in capabilities, how is the wisdom of a titled individual more correct than your own?

Again, as I said, anyone except the Czar had the possibility to become the "top guy". There were many proffessions available to them, you know.

Yet not ALL positions within society are open to everyone- there can be no equality in this system. How would you feel about living in a society where you can be anything you want except a Doctor. Anything you want but that, does that system sound fair? What about a system where you can be anything excepot an Artist- no matter how talented you are, you can never be that. Most individuals would not settle for that situation, how is this one any different?

In fact, most of the peasants in Russia WERE wealthy.

No, they were not. The peasants were slaves to the Czar. All that they owned ultimelty belonged to him. If the Czar made a decree that they must gove up their wealth to him, they had no choice but to comply. A slave can own nothing, just as the peasants never really owned anything.

Those who were NOT were just lazy to do anything.

Isn't this a bit of overgeneralization?

Most of the peasants prefered blaming the czar for everything.

Why not? Look at the system they lived in- One man made the rules, and enforced them. At no time do the peasants really have a voice in what happens to them, or how. The peasants are forced into a position of living solely off the mercy and compasion of the Czar- in the hopes that he might dain to ease their suffering- yet at no time can they expect him to.

Czar is the only master they had since the abolition of slavery by Alexander III.

There was no "abolition of slavery". there was only an exchange of masters. Instead of many individuals having slaves, there was only ONE individual having slaves- that is the change- yet the slavery still exsists.

Again, those poor men were lazy and they had to follow their land owners' will because those people gave them money.

Poor does not equate with lazy as many of your statements imply. There are many reasons why someone can be poor that have nothing to do with their work ethic.

Wealthy peasants, on the other hand, were independent, and again, had no master except the Czar.

What do you call a man with ANY master?

Now if you take a plain normal person in a democracy. Doesn't he has to follow the orders of the president+congress?

No, in a democracy all people decide together what is the best course of action, and what the majority decides is instutited- we all agree to abide by the general consensus- we are following our own dictates in a democracy.

Now, in a Republic, WE choose who will represent our views and interests- these individuals will answer to US, so they can make the rules, but there is a peaceful way to demonstrate our approval or disapproval with their conduct- no such means exsist in a Monarchy. Yes, we follow the orders of our government, but in effect we are merely following our own self imposed agreements. We are the masters of ourselves.

Yes there is. How did the peasants overthrow the government in 1917 then? Every soldier in the army was drafted from the non-nobles. Nobles were already made officers. Thus, without peasants happy, the country will have no:

And if the peasants are unable to overthrow the Czar? What then? Are you condemning them to a life of servitute with no hope of ever breaking free from the slavery? The system you discuss is built on this idea of "overthrowing" the government when it no longer makes the people happy- what if the people are unhappy and still unable to overthrow the government?

Russia forged and polished its government system for a long time, reaching almost total perfection.

If it was so perfect, why would they have a revolution?

It was sort of not the Czar's fault. This worker uprising thing happened for the first time in the world, almost. Right now it DOES seem obvious what to do if that kind of a problem arises. Back then it wasn't.

Not the Czar's fault? Wasn't he in charge? If the Czar is the one running the show, making the laws, enforcing the rules- dosen't it neccessarily mean everything is his fault?

And the fact that the workers revolution happened there first is meaningless- if the system was near perfection, it should have been able to cope with a change in the social environment. The fact that it wasn't able to deal effectively is the sign that the system was not as perfect as may have seemed.

The workers weren't really opressed, they were just tired of working and working and working and war and war and war and no rights of speech.

They were tired of working themselves to death. They were tired of the endless wars they were forced to fight in. They had no right to speak their point of view. So you might say they were tired of being slaves. How can you be a slave and not be oppresed?

The right of speech that was given out to the people in 1905 did have some effect - it
postponed the revolution until 1917.

So apparently "writing a letter to the Czar" was not enough. Go figure.

Just a passing thought: Imagine the person you hate most in the world. Imagine having to ask them for anything and everything you need in life. Imagine that you have to bow to this personn everytime they enter, and everytime they leave. Imagine having to smile for them, and having to like it. Now imagine them as your King.

If you think you can tolerate the person you hate most deciding your fate, then maybe a monarchy is for you.

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-28 12:56:10

A society of sycophants? Hero worship aside, is this really a credible reason to instutite a form of government that is predicated on a master-slave relationship? While I may be able to accept the rationale that individuals may wish for a "shining leader" while they become acclamated to Mars, isn't it a bit of a jump to instutite this desire as the means to enact public policy?

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.

So you would have a society that violently changes administartions? In the system you are suggesting, dissent from the Exeutive, ie the Monarch, is made through usurption of the crown by another who will make the populace more content- wouldn't the wiser course be to instuttite a system whereby people can peacefully affect a change without having to resort to physical force?

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.

Shouldn't we demonstrate our knowledge of previous experiences by avoiding systems that are historically unstable?

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.

Who is a better judge of what is needed by you, you, or someone else?If we are all human, and all equal (more or less) in capabilities, how is the wisdom of a titled individual more correct than your own?

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.

How would you feel about living in a society where you can be anything you want except a Doctor.

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, they were not. The peasants were slaves to the Czar. All that they owned ultimelty belonged to him. If the Czar made a decree that they must gove up their wealth to him, they had no choice but to comply. A slave can own nothing, just as the peasants never really owned anything.

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.

Those who were NOT were just lazy to do anything.
Isn't this a bit of overgeneralization?

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.

Why not? Look at the system they lived in...

That question was answered by my replies above.

There was no "abolition of slavery". there was only an exchange of masters. Instead of many individuals having slaves, there was only ONE individual having slaves- that is the change- yet the slavery still exsists.

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.

Poor does not equate with lazy as many of your statements imply. There are many reasons why someone can be poor that have nothing to do with their work ethic.

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.

What do you call a man with ANY master?

That was answered in another answer.

No, in a democracy all people decide together what is the best course of action

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

...but there is a peaceful way to demonstrate our approval or disapproval with their conduct- no such means exsist in a Monarchy...

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

And if the peasants are unable to overthrow the Czar? What then? Are you condemning them to a life of servitute with no hope of ever breaking free from the slavery? The system you discuss is built on this idea of "overthrowing" the government when it no longer makes the people happy- what if the people are unhappy and still unable to overthrow the government?

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.

If it was so perfect, why would they have a revolution?

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.

Not the Czar's fault? Wasn't he in charge? If the Czar is the one running the show, making the laws, enforcing the rules- dosen't it neccessarily mean everything is his fault?

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

They were tired of working themselves to death. They were tired of the endless wars they were forced to fight in. They had no right to speak their point of view. So you might say they were tired of being slaves. How can you be a slave and not be oppresed?

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.

So apparently "writing a letter to the Czar" was not enough. Go figure.

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.

clark · 2002-05-28 14:38:18

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.

In what way would it be emotionally good? Why is it so neccessary?

Probably not absolute monarchy, but constitutional monarchy would be good.

What is the difference? Why should the role of executive be determined by heredity? What sense is there in this? Just becuase one man is good does not mean their children will be good, or better- yet that is what we must expect from a Monarcgy, in any form. A Monarchy is also a statement that certain individuals are chosen by God to rule over Us- how can you establish a seperation of church and state if the executive power is established by a mandate from God?

That's just my theory.

And I am merely asking you to justify this stance and this belief. I am hoping to learn, not neccessarily teach.

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.

Why? As long as a monarch maintains a hold on enough neccessary physical force to maintain his rule, the wishes of the general population are meaningless. Look at Cuba- Castro maintains control through the monopoly of control over force- he only has to answer to those individuals he is dependant upon that gurantee his position. In the monarchy system, the ruler needs only fear the general population, which can be controlled through repression- the monarch is not accountable since he gets to choose when and how he acts, yet the people have only two choices- revolt or live with the dictates. Why would you want to reduce your options from many, to only two?

Who says democracy is stable? Look at what's going on in France right now with the Le Pen guy.

Yes, look at Le Pen. Imagine him as a Monarch- yet in the democracy his rule is prevented peacefully by allowing the Public to decide. If he was a prince an heir apparent, there would be nothing the public could do to voice it's dissent other than open rebellion. How can we progress as a society with internal conflict like this?

et look at Brunei where the Monarch is both the Sultan AND the Prime Minister. Brunei, by theay, is a very wealthy country.

That is due to the resources located within the country, and not a direct product of the form of government.

Those men were uneducated. If the monarch declined what the guy was asking for usually meant that the guy could do everything by himself.

Even uneducated individuals know what they need. What level of education bestows the neccessary wisdom to make decisions for other people you don't know?An individual generally knows what is best for their particular circumstances- do you contend that people do not know what is best for themselves, and there are those who do not know them, are inherently better suited to make the decisions for them? Uneducated does not mean dumb.

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.

Actually, in the USA, you can be a prostutie- if you live in Nevada. As for what you are trying to demonstrate, you are missing the point- a job denied to everyone is equality- no one gets preferential treatment. Why do you think there is such a debate on allowing gays or women to serve in the front lines? denying them access based on arbitray and artifical reasons is inequitbale, and thus unfair.

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.

No, in a monarchy, the peasants are the servants of the master- all that they possess belong to the master. If the master decides to take any of their property, who can they protest to? The very person that can legally take ownership of their possesions is also the person who will decide if it is legitimate. In a democracy, if an executive proceeded in the same manner, the people are allowed to turn to other parties to settle the legality of the action- they are not forced to rely on the same person as is the case of a Monarchy.

It's almost the same thing people do today, except instead of a title they get a mansion or whatever.

No, it is not the same thing. Buying the title was a means to expand opportunities which are denied those without titles- a mansion confers no such advantages. In order to move up the class scale, a title HAD to be purchased- otherwise, you would forever be relgated to the lower echelons of society. In a democracy however this just isn't the case- by exceling at whatever you do, you can attain status- which is not related to the amount of money you aquire.

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

You are correct, congress is not all people- that's why America is NOT a democracy. It NEVER has been a democracy other than at the local level, and only occasionaly. The USA is a Republic- if you look at my previous post, you will notice I made a differentiation- I did so for a reason. I also pointed out that our government is held accountable and that we are ALL able to voice are dissent in a peaceful way. When they make bad laws, we can change them without having to revolt- this is not true with the Monarchy system you have advocated for.

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

No, they were tolerated at the King's conveniance. If the King decides there will be no demonstration, for whatever reason, there willbe no demonstration. That is the kind of power you give one individual. Why allow yourself to be ruled by the whims of one person?

And if they failed, that's their own problem, because if they tried they could[revolt].

So only those revolutions that are capable of overcoming a tyrant are good ones? Otherwise, hey, it's not a problem.

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.

You are wrong. Even the titled nobility were beholden to the Czar- they were still slaves. Just becuase they were higher up in the social hierarchy dosen't change the fact that the King could make or break them dependant upon his mood. The Jews who acted as police in the Jewish concentration camps were prisoners just like the rest- just becuase they got to order around other people within the jails, they were still not free.

Palomar · 2002-06-13 14:23:45

Anton wrote: "I'm a monarchist. To bring back monarchy me and other monarchists..."

*Who will be the first Monarch on Mars? And on what basis? What will be the deciding factor/criteria for determining who becomes Monarch?

I've read quite a bit of history. Though no political system is perfect, Monarchy has a long track record of being populated by Kings and Queens who didn't give a damn about their subjects, and lived only for the fulfillment of their selfish desires. King Louis XIV of France lived in opulent splendor and luxury, while most of his subjects were barely scraping out a hand-to-mouth existence (particularly the peasants, which made up the vast majority of the French populace at that time). He decided he didn't have enough money to further fund his selfish desires and fulfill his selfish whims, and contrary to the prickings of his conscience he decided to INCREASE the taxes of the French people, most of whom were barely getting by. This resulted in massive riots and threats of regicide in France.

History is replete with selfish, vain, pompous, and callous Monarchs like Louis (let alone other authority figures of other political systems); most were NOT good Monarchs. The idea of being granted the "right of rule" simply on the basis of birth makes my stomach turn as well. Everyone is born. Big deal.

Ability, not birth, should be the deciding factor in leadership, period.

--Cindy

Aetius · 2002-06-15 18:53:09

The idea of Monarchy seemed very romantic to me, but Clark made some very compelling arguments against it.

Definitely not as good of an idea as I'd thought.

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-06-29 18:58:45

Again sorry for not replying in so long. My connection went down.

In what way would it be emotionally good? Why is it so neccessary?

As I said before, a monarch is a person you can:

a. Look up to.
b. BLame for everything and thus take your anger out on him in private (not that is very good, but at least you stop being so unsure of yourself).
c. Praise for everything and thus raising your spirit.

Personally, setting aside my monarchist belief, I would not go into to battle yelling "For the president" or "for democracy", but rather "For The King/Czar!" or how the famous Russian saying goes "For the Czar, For the Country, For the Church!"
(It's actually "for the belief" but that doesn't sound right in English, I think).

What is the difference? Why should the role of executive be determined by heredity? What sense is there in this? Just becuase one man is good does not mean their children will be good, or better- yet that is what we must expect from a Monarcgy, in any form. A Monarchy is also a statement that certain individuals are chosen by God to rule over Us- how can you establish a seperation of church and state if the executive power is established by a mandate from God?

Difference is a big one. Why do you think the manifest of 1905 saved Russia from the revolution for another 10 years? Most people (at first) didn't even think that there should be anything besides monarchy. After Czar Nicholas II agreed to give up the throne, more than a half of the Russian people wanted a new CZAR and NOT democracy or any other state of government. There was aproblem when the new Czar refused to take up the throne, and that's what the communists used to "convert" people. As for the children part - that is the weakest part of monarchy, I agree, and I cannot say anything against it. BUT if you noticed, unlike in other countries, the Russian Emperors never were overtyrannical to the people. True, Peter I, Nicholas I, and Alexander III were tough Emperors, but nevertheless, they weren't tyrannical. Basically, "Bloody Sunday" was the greatest mistake of the last Czar - people started to think of him as a Tyrant, and some even called him "Nicholas the Bloody".

As for the church, I don't see why such a separation is needed. In the government of the Russian Empire, the church played an important role, but towards the modern times, its power grew weaker. For example, if in the times of Peter I, the Czar had to ask for a permission to wage war on the enemies, Nicholas II never asked anyone 9except his counselors) to declare war on the German-Austrian alliance.

And I am merely asking you to justify this stance and this belief. I am hoping to learn, not neccessarily teach.

That is what I'm trying to do in all of the posts I posted here.

As long as a monarch maintains a hold on enough neccessary physical force to maintain his rule, the wishes of the general population are meaningless.

We have a problem here. I am saying one thing, you're just declining it and stating your idea. Every monarch was scared of the revolution, because he might loose his power. Revolution is usually made by the lower class. One way of stopping a revolution was to become a tyrant and sink the revolution in blood. That's what the European monarchs prefered most of the times. The Russian Czars, however, never prefered that, and used the other way: to try to make the people happy.

Imagine him as a Monarch- yet in the democracy his rule is prevented peacefully by allowing the Public to decide.

Well, in the french "democracy" people can't really do much, except vote. Otherwise, everything is up to the president. And besides, if they elected a president, they would probably elect a party that is a friend of the president.

Well, anyway, that's a republic. Democracy is when all the people make rules, which happened in Ancient Greece. Currently, I don't know of any country that uses real democracy as a state of government. Only republics. That's like it is with communism. Communism seems good, but it's basically impossible. Almost the same thing with democracy.

That is due to the resources located within the country, and not a direct product of the form of government.

Russia has more resources than Brunei, yet look what's happening to it with its "democracy".

Even uneducated individuals know what they need

Yes, but they don't always know the right ways to do it. And when they do, AND when that way is to tell the Czar, the Czar gives them what they want.

As for what you are trying to demonstrate, you are missing the point- a job denied to everyone is equality- no one gets preferential treatment

Ok, but if you grow up in a society where it's just impossible to grow up to be a Czar I don't think many people want to be one. It's just something that is carved into your head. It's basically called brainwashing, but here it's not on purpose. That's something you grow up with and something you usually never think about it. Now, if you DO, lets see why you might want to do that. To have power. You can achieve the highest rank possible and control the Czar yourself, basically doing anything you want through him. If you're smart, it'll work out. If you're not, it won't, but in order to be a Czar, you have to be smart. That's why mentally disabled heirs to the throne were the last option as a heir. You might want to be the Czar to become famous. Well, there are many ways to become famous. Suvorov, for example. I knew of Suvorov BEFORE I knew about even Peter the Great, and I'm not talking about Boris Godunov or Nicholas II. You might want to do so to make the people of your country to love you, but you can do the same without being a Czar. Vitte, for example, was loved by the people of Russia.
And the Czar could be anyone he wanted, he could even give up the throne if he wanted to. But if he didn't want to give up the throne, that's his problem. He can be whatever he wants to be AND also be the Czar at the same time. Peter the Great, for example, was a Czar, a soldier, a shipbuilder, AND he could speak many languages.

No, in a monarchy, the peasants are the servants of the master- all that they possess belong to the master.

Ahem, no. In absolute monarchy, yes, but in a slightly constitutional monarchy, a Czar had no right to do that. Peasants owned their stuff. Period. If the Czar wanted to take away a peasant's house or whatever, he would make a conspiracy against that person and take it away as they take it away now for breaking a law. But, anyone could tell on another person, so basically, the Czar wasn't very special there. And in Russian monarchy, Czars taking away your stuff just because they wanted to stopped waaaaay before the end of slavery.

In a democracy however this just isn't the case- by exceling at whatever you do, you can attain status- which is not related to the amount of money you aquire.

In a monarchy, by excelling in what you do you can easily purchase a title and move on. It doesn't cost that much. Right now, a title costs $2000 max. Back then it might have costed $5000. But even I can earn that, if I excel in what I do. For example, wealthy peasants (farmers) often bought their titles, but they really didn't need it, since they did farming, got their money, and were happy. They earned as much, and sometimes even more than noblemen did, and really had no use for a title. Craftsmen could easily gain that amount of money if they tried and excelled in what they do. Anyone could. On the other hand, people who didn't, never could gain a title. Noblemen who didn't do good at controlling their lands often lost their money, broke the law and lost their titles. But if you do something good, you can EASILY get to the top if you wanted to.

If the King decides there will be no demonstration, for whatever reason, there willbe no demonstration.

I don't think a smart King would do that. Look at what Nicholas II when he did that.

So only those revolutions that are capable of overcoming a tyrant are good ones? Otherwise, hey, it's not a problem.

That just means that most of the people are still satisfied with the old government.

You are wrong. Even the titled nobility were beholden to the Czar- they were still slaves.

If you are smart, he won't break you. Vitte was smart, and he never was broken. Smart noblemen who know when to be stupid and when to be smart can stay where they are or even achieve higher heights.

Personally, I think that this is going nowhere. We will always have something to argue about and something to respond with to each other. But whatever. I don't know.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-04-30 16:39:40

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#2 2002-05-05 12:31:57

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#3 2002-05-05 12:45:40

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#4 2002-05-05 12:54:42

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#5 2002-05-10 22:42:43

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#6 2002-05-15 18:34:58

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#7 2002-05-15 18:35:36

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#8 2002-05-16 09:14:25

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#9 2002-05-16 16:25:10

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#10 2002-05-16 16:39:44

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#11 2002-05-19 13:04:23

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#12 2002-05-20 10:53:59

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#13 2002-05-21 20:23:27

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#14 2002-05-22 07:46:16

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#15 2002-05-23 09:41:34

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#16 2002-05-23 10:26:02

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#17 2002-05-23 19:51:59

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#18 2002-05-24 08:15:27

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#19 2002-05-24 22:20:38

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#20 2002-05-28 05:50:54

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#21 2002-05-28 12:56:10

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#22 2002-05-28 14:38:18

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#23 2002-06-13 14:23:45

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#24 2002-06-15 18:53:09

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

#25 2002-06-29 18:58:45

Re: Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country

Board footer