New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2002-02-11 13:47:59

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,345

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Is this not obviously a case of mass delusion? The people who desired to be the master race obviously felt their position in society was inadequate, else they would have had no psychological reason to dominate.

Who cares what you call it, the point you are failing to address is that the system you propose has nothing built into it to prevent such manipulation. Anarchy, and the form you propose specifically is open to abuse without any menas to correct any imbalance.

I will make you better than everyone.? ?But then, what follows, is that I am not good enough?? Even clark is suggesting that people can't vote for themselves!

No, everyone is quite capable of voting for themselves- I am suggesting that it is in societies general interest to NOT have everyone voting for themselves. The number one reason is that every individual cannot be effectievly educated on all proposals, and to try an attempt at such an endeavour is ultimeltly futile. Direct Democracy and/or anarchy formulated on the premise that individuals make all the votes will perpetuate a system whereby large groups or organizations form to raise money to campaign their "cause"- this means that in order to make policy changes, groups will run ads, they will run marketing campaigns- which will develop into the commercialization of the democratic process whereby money and "airtime" decides the ultimate viability of getting legislation passed.

You want proof? Look at the US process for electing represenatives. The best predictor of wether or not a canadite will win is funding- those who spend more tend to do better Couple this system with a 24/7 voting mechanism and it is utter ####!

I mean, I don't think it would be hard to show, scientifically, that people are relatively equal in psychological capacty. As such, our society would probably  be best off taking that into consideration. By not assuming that people who are ?weaker? are also psychologically inferior.

Umm, define "psychological capacity". There is not such thing as "equal"- there are Norms, which are derived from distribution of measured behavior (like wearing socks to bed, eating right handed, etc.) but that is not hard and objective- it differs from group to group depending on how you define your base population.

I agree, but that does not mean that the people who are subordinates are unable to exist outside of a heirachy. The formation, however, is often done outside of a rational sphere of thought.

Actually, the formation of a hierarchy is very rational- groups can do more than an individual- ordered groups can do more than groups with no internal order becuase of efficiency. If you want the psych slant- order allows for planning- if you know your place in a group, then you have a foundation to work from ( you also know what you can expect and what is expected from you).

Imagine a group of people trying to get something done when no one has any responsibility nor does anyone have any expectations of anyone else.

Offline

#27 2002-02-12 12:04:31

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Anarchy, and the form you propose specifically is open to abuse without any menas to correct any imbalance.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html

The number one reason [people cannot vote for themselves] is that every individual cannot be effectievly educated on all proposals, and to try an attempt at such an endeavour is ultimeltly futile.

How many proposals to you ?forsee?? They will be intuitive and long term, not ad hoc like they are currently. That's why it takes time to analyze the proposal on a larger scale, and that's why more voices are better than few.

Like I said, direct democracy isn't fast. There will be few proposals because there are only so many things you can do in a system that is well planned. Whole towns will be designed with the long term in mind.

[...] define "psychological capacity."

Umm, mental capacity. You could take a human from anywhere in the world, insert him into whatever culture, and it would act as though it was its natural environment (assuming of course that it wasn't already contaminated by another culture). Sure, there are some areas of the world where human genetics have been somewhat broken by lack of nutrition and so on, but generally speaking, we are close enough in respect to mental capablity (genetically speaking, we are identical- which is another argument for human equality).

Actually, the formation of a hierarchy is very rational- groups can do more than an individual- ordered groups can do more than groups with no internal order becuase of efficiency.

The formation of a hierarchy is rational if you're willing to give up certain individuality. Ordered groups can do ?more,? I conceed, but noramlly, ordered groups do things in an ad hoc fasion, to serve the wants of the master. A corporative effort would consider the long term, and would serve the needs of the group.

Imagine a group of people trying to get something done when no one has any responsibility nor does anyone have any expectations of anyone else.

Imagine how much responsiblity you'd have if your voice was exactly equal to your fellow human. You have no subordinate to blame if you make a mistake, and you have no boss to go to if you're uncertain what to do. Anarchy isn't ?easy.?

By far.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#28 2002-02-14 11:10:54

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,345

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I am going through that link you provided on your last post, interesting take on politcal theory...

However a few questions:

The "vision" of anarchy is a direct democracy based communal grass-roots effort at engaging peoples based on an "association" which would engender leagues and confederations which would then join in larger confederations. It seems that the "anarchy vision" is one of self-defined commonwealths who would maintain soverigntigy over their direct geographical location, and that individuals would make decisions for their communities.

Now, the problems I see right now: If you reduce the level of "soverigenty" down to this community level, what recourse is available to other communities when they have a disagreement with another community? What if community A is stealing from community B? It seems that what is actually being offered is a city-state ideal of self-governing.

SOunds great until we start to extrapolate from this point. The rise of the nation state was to ensure domestic tranquiility by reducing the threat of outside aggression. In other words, the nation state is the direct result of economic and military alliances formed to ensure that participants could maintain their liberty and their way of life from outside ussuption by either commercial manipulation or outright invasion.

While i sympathize with your goal, I find fault with your logic on humanities ability to easily choose this avenue of politcal development. How does anarchy as you define it fill the role of the nation state by preventing outside aggresion or economic slavery by larger commercial interests or larger groups of "confederations"?

You are reducing everyone to individual untis, you are DIVIDING people- not uniting. As such, larger groups that are able to unite will have a greater advantage, those that fail to unite will be at a disadvantage.

Unless you have a plan that will somehow fundamentaly change human behavior- ie resource aqusition and accumulation, this cannot work. Unless you have a plan to resolve all wolrd conflicts (which are ultimetly based on resources), anarchy will not work.

Offline

#29 2002-02-16 16:25:03

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I am going through that link you provided on your last post, interesting take on politcal theory...

I'd suggest reading the whole FAQ, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html since that basically answers all the questions you had this time around.

If ya can't tell, I'm getting lazy responding to these discussions. I have my theories, you guys have yours. Plus, this is a bit off topic to the inital thread (not my fault, either! I just wanted to show that direct democracy is nice).


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#30 2002-03-31 22:57:25

RobHazlewood
Banned
Registered: 2002-03-20
Posts: 19

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Shaun,
you mentioned this in your post:

"I should, in fairness, point out that many Australians support
the notion of a republic, though they are in the minority at present."

Actually, 90% of Australians support the notion of a republic.
We don't hate the queen, and we are all sad to see the queen's mum die. The british monarchy is just left over from the past, and has no relevance to any everyday australian.

Recently there was a referendum asking australians whether we should become a republic or not. Basically, the federal government worded the questions in such a way that would encourage people to say no. The no case won, but only because people wanted to adopt a republic in a different manner than was being offered.

The Australian PM spends too much time thinking about the past. He never looks toward the future, except in the short timeframe of 3 years.

He is encouraging racism, and is basically trying to get into bed with America. Its not like alot of americans even know where australia is!

'nuff said.
-Rob

Offline

#31 2002-04-01 09:52:55

Bill White
Member
Registered: 2001-09-09
Posts: 2,114

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

<<He is encouraging racism, and is basically trying to get into bed with America. Its not like alot of americans even know where australia is!>>

Hmmm - I always thought Australia was somewhere near the Malvinas Islands - you know - the Falklands? Or maybe the Galapagos Islands?

Am I Right or wrong?   ???

Anyway, I do know that Australia is a long ways from Y'urp - so there!

Signed -

Just another daft Yank   big_smile

Offline

#32 2002-06-12 02:38:39

Ares
Member
Registered: 2002-06-12
Posts: 12
Website

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

But the Swiss system might satisfy MOST of Alexander's requirements for fair government. As I understand it, if a particular issue catches the attention of the public, they can instigate a referendum on it by gathering a certain number of signatures on a petition (100,000 from memory but I am ready to be corrected on this). <snip>
   What do others think about it?

   I suspect, though, that after the initial novelty wore off, a lot of people would abandon voting in favour of other pursuits. It would mostly be such boring statutory stuff that all but the most politically motivated people would just give up.

<mine>  Isn't that pretty much the way it works now. smile </mine>

I would advocate a sort of representational referendum (the Swiss system sounds similar, but I don't know much about that).  I imagine a weak legilature with mostly suggestive powers, except for on perhaps less important, boring matters.  The legislature places bills on a regularly occuring ballot, and the public at large votes for them.  Private political concerns (i.e. parties and such) could then advertise supporting one side or the other.
     The public should also have the power to initiate bills (probably through petition) or to "yank" the vote on an issue away from the legislature -- similar, it sounds, to the Swiss model.
     I would also advocate greater public involvement in the judicial system.  The public, and not "the courts" should interpret the laws.  Now the mechanism for this is not clear, as it would probably be unpracticable to have a referendum for every cases -- I reference again the boredom syndrome mentioned in the previous post, but perhaps having a jury (maybe even a grand jury) decide such issues is interesting.
smile  smile


A non-profit effort to establish  The Ares Concordant
a permanent, human colony     info@aresconcordant.org
on Mars.                                 www.aresconcordant.org

Offline

#33 2022-01-07 13:59:38

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 3,213

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

As bad as democracy can be .....some say it might not work on Mars but it so far is the best of a bad bunch, and you can elect them out. What happens when your monarchy gets compromised and blackmailed?

Epstein pedo island stuff catching up with the British Prince?

Queen refuses to pay Prince Andrew's sex abuse case legal fees, forces him to quickly sell chalet
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertai … halet.html

Previous discussion
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2776
Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-01-12 16:44:03)

Offline

#34 2022-01-07 15:10:38

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,280
Website

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

That article still makes me uncomfortable. In year 2006, Canada increased age of consent from 14 to 16. That means under Canadian law, having sex with someone age 16 or older is not "pedo". If he paid for sex then it's prostitution, and that's illegal in Canada. But that means if the accusations against Prince Andrew are correct, he's not guilty of pedophilia, he's just guilty of hiring a prostitute. The individual he's accused of having sex with was 17 at the time. And if she consented, it's not sexual assault.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2022-01-07 15:45:11)

Offline

#35 2022-01-07 17:29:46

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 25,943

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_c … ted_States

Fall out from the Epstein pedo island for sure and its got more names for the list

looks like another is going to get away Cuomo Criminal Charge Dismissed


nice job Th with cleaning up these old topics

Offline

#36 2022-01-14 08:15:57

Terraformer
Member
From: Ceres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,531
Website

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

The Pitcairn Islands were governed democratically. In the end, it's the Crown that had to deal with them becoming nonceland.

Kings can be forced to abdicate, or failing that assassinated. Far harder to dislodge a bad 'democratic' government. Too much diffusion of responsibility, too little ability to co-ordinate.


"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony

Offline

#37 2022-01-14 09:38:21

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

For Terraformer re #36

This post is not intended to question or dispute your assertion  about kings.  All I'd like to do is to report that reading your words caused me to think about how hard it might be to remove Putin, Xi, the gent who controls Belarus, or a number of other distinct personalities who've seized control of the reigns of power and intend to keep them.

Meanwhile, the leader of Great Britain is on the ropes because he told a lie.  The lie was about hypocrisy, so I suppose the offense was compounded. 

Years ago, if memory serves, I read a history of Egyption pharaohs.  There was a time (again, if memory serves) when a pharoah was expected to die at the end of a period of rulership.

I think ** that ** would be a practice worth considering for human government.

If a person wants the honor and responsibility to serve as head of state, then the term would be defined by the population (such as 8 years) and the individual would accept death at the end of the term.

it would formalize the assassination option.

PS ... kbd512 has agreed to take on hosting duties for the later Zoom.

Would you be at all interested in helping to pull one or two of your European members into the 19:00 UTC Zoom?

That time is not set in stone.  It was suggested as a possibility, since 1 AM Monday is not going to work well for most folks.

If using the video is a problem, audio only is fine.  kbd512 often goes hours at a time in audio only mode.

(th)

Offline

#38 2022-01-14 13:41:04

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

For Terraformer ....

By coincidence, a report about Chile showed up in today's news feed ... I decided to look at it, and here is a first post ... I didn't read the article word for word ... I scanned it, to get a sense of it.  If someone would care to call attention to a specific section of text, I'd be happy to read that and try to evaluate it in light of whatever comments might have been posted by a NewMars member...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chile-rewrit … 05885.html

Chile is not the only country in the western hemisphere where the political system has frozen into an ossified, dysfunctional mess. But it turns out a constitution, no matter how old, is just some words on a page. If enough people demand a new one, it can be done. After all, it's how we got our current Constitution in the first place. No time like the present to start asking.

The article at the link above is about the prospect that Chile might try to update or replace it's constitution.

Mars will (hopefully) have a human population at some point, and with any luck, it might have a chance to become a functioning democracy.  However, the odds are stacked strongly against it.

Because I've been working on posts from 20 years ago in the NewMars forum, I have been exposed to discussions that were hot and heavy at the time.  The posts I see are more or less at random, but the snapshots occur every 300 posts when I check to see how the update turned out.

What seems clear (to me at least) is that nothing has changed in 20 years.

Posts reflect every conceivable level of education and of emotional maturity that might be imagined.

Now, in the "real world" of 2022, it is painfully obvious that the US Constitution is unable to cope with a massive flood of distrust created by lies propagated by social media at the speed of light.

Aside from the United States, which has it's own problems, the people of Chile have an opportunity to think anew about how a human society might be organized and what rules might be agreed upon for "civilized" behavior.

It seems to me that humans planning to set up shop on Mars might do well to think long and hard about the frailties of the human character, and how to try to create a set of rules to live by that have even a slight chance of persisting.

(th)

Offline

#39 2022-01-14 18:42:05

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 5,842

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

tahanson43206,

Kill senior leadership after the end of their term in office?

Wow.  What enlightened thinking we've developed here.

Does that mean we would have killed President Carter and all the charity work he did around the world, after he served as President?

What's the probability that leadership only attracts psychotic death-cult type personalities?

Do we have any ideas related to governance that don't end with tyranny and murder?

Offline

#40 2022-01-14 19:00:36

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

For kbd512 ...

If a person has the drive to seek the highest office, they probably can't be trusted with the office.

In the early days of the US, candidates had to be persuaded to accept the responsibilities of the office.

This topic was opened by SCFalken to consider a Constitutional  Monarchy for Mars.

Do you have a suggestion for a way of governing a population that avoids the risks of the natural tendency of humans to drift toward authoritarianism?

(th)

Offline

#41 2022-01-14 20:54:43

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 5,842

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

tahanson43206,

Find leaders who actually love their own people more than the sound of their own voice.  If you have someone who thinks they're better than other people because of their title or education or how much money they have in their pocket, then that is most likely the very last person you want to grant authority to, over the lives of other people.  Anyone who thinks they're entitled to something that belongs to someone else, is also the last person you want to grant authority to.  This isn't a difficult concept to figure out, except for people who lust after "control" over other people.

The people must also share moral values, or society will never function well.  Those values need to be generally agreed upon, not forced upon one group of people by another.  If one group of people wants to harass, ostracize, enslave, or destroy some other group within society, then those are the absolute last people who should ever be anywhere near a position of authority.

You also need to prosecute anyone within education or mass media whenever they attempt to pit one group of people within society against another by making false claims or imputing ideas or motives to people they've never met.  Slander and libel laws used to have real teeth, but now you can say anything about anyone, almost without consequence.  It's one thing to voice an opinion about something someone did awful to someone else, but quite another to claim a specific motive without ever having asked them a single question.  Anyone who incites others to violence or commits unprovoked attacks on others should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Basically, these people are evil incarnate, whether they assert themselves to be righteous or not.

Basically, people who love and respect other people don't drift towards tyranny.  Regale me with some stories about all the tyrannical Buddhist monks.  There aren't any.  Why is that?  They're taught to respect all life, even the insects that eat the crops.  Contrast those kinds of leaders with the people who think they were ordained by god to be or do whatever (kings and queens), or are so fixated on their ideas that they think of other people like objects to be manipulated (dictators).  It's a personality issue.

Offline

#42 2022-01-14 22:10:23

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

For kbd512 .... I'm saving a line from your post #41 because I think it is important.

It's a personality issue.

This topic was created by SCFalken back in 2002 or so ...

There aren't ** that ** many posts to read, so I should be able to work it into my schedule.

The premise of a Monarchy is that rule is given to a family, and they carry that rule forward without a messy turnover to other families.

The premise of a Constitutional Monarchy depends upon the Constitution.

Knowing the population of the forum back in 2002 (to the extent I am encountering posts from that period) I expect to find that the majority of the members disagreed with the premise.  The topic was brought back by Mars_B4_Moon, else it would have remained forgotten in the mists of time.

(th)

Offline

#43 2022-01-14 23:48:56

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I'm back from reading the topic from the top....

There was a lot of substance in the early going ....

As I expected, the general drift was against any form of monarchy (ie, genetic continuity of head of state).

However, the discussion of alternatives was wide ranging, and (disappointing to me) no conclusion was reached.

However, the frailty of humans ** was ** brought up, as was the tendency of individuals to group with others to gain collective power.

The discussion of why pure democracy is impractical got some air time.

The Posts Repair initiative set in motion by SpaceNut made the reading quite trouble free.

That work will continue through July and it might extend into August.

For kbd512 re the Egyptian practice of terminating their Pharaohs ... That practice only lasted for a few hundred years, as I recall the history.  Apparently some Pharaoh decided to put a stop to it.  The modern idea of term limits is similar, but that practice does not seem to be very effective.

(th)

Offline

#44 2022-01-15 04:34:58

Terraformer
Member
From: Ceres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,531
Website

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Meanwhile, the leader of Great Britain is on the ropes because he told a lie.  The lie was about hypocrisy, so I suppose the offense was compounded.

The "democratically elected" leader is on the ropes. Elizabeth Windsor, the unelected head of state, is not in any trouble except that caused by her failson.

Many systems around the world have an unelected body capable of overruling the democratic legislature. The United States has the Supreme Court. Canada has its Senate, Britain has our House of Lords (which is in dire need of reform, aka kicking out the 'party peers' - a man famous for creating period dramas should not have been given a peerage). Something like the Quarian Admiralty Board would be a very good idea for a colony in an inhospitable environment to have I think. If the democratic government is failing to uphold its maintenance responsibilities, because it's easier to kick the can down the road to the next term, someone has to be able to override them and get the airlocks replaced before they blow out.


"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony

Offline

#45 2022-01-15 07:56:00

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 10,760

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

For Terraformer re #44

It is good to see your contribution to the current incarnation of this topic!

It was ** definitely ** disappointing to see that the earlier discussion led to no consensus on how to set up a human community so that conflicts are resolved peacefully.  I think Josh Cryer was carrying most of the water at that time, but I don't get the impression he persuaded anyone.

In the current scene on Earth, we see a wide variety of experiments with governance ... Vladimir Putin appears to be actively trying to re-constitute the Soviet Union by subterfuge and force.  Xi Jinping appears to be consolidating his rule by force.  Alexander Lukashenko appears to be in authoritarian control of Belarus. Kim Jong-un is emphatically in control of his state, through the artful use of force.  Bashar al-Assad has maintained his authoritarian control of most of Syria thanks to the assistance of Vladimir Putin. 

In this topic in the 2002 discussion, there was an attempt to explore the weakness of pure democracy. 

It seems to me that with nothing whatsoever settled about how humans might successfully govern them selves, conflict and the use of force seem (to me at least) inevitable.

Edit:

From Post #11 from 2002

( Incidentally and just for the record, I'm not actually advocating constitutional monarchy for Mars. I have a very open mind about it all. But I would urge caution in setting up anything too 'brand new'. History has shown that it can take a long time to eliminate all the loop-holes in a new constitution, and dictators have emerged by squeezing through those loop-holes. A tried and trusted system, however flawed, may therefore be preferable to something untried. I always think of that old adage: "The price of liberty is constant vigilance".)

This text from 2002 is remarkably descriptive of what appears to have happened in the United States recently.

An attempt to establish a dictatorship appears to have occurred.

The Rule of Law is hanging on by a sliver of frayed thread.  How the present situation will turn out is anyone's guess.

(th)

Offline

#46 2022-01-15 09:59:02

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 25,943

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

It appears that the double standard of the rich versus poor is about to be torn down as more are being caught in the lies and more.

They are not above the law.

Offline

#47 2022-03-03 08:09:27

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 3,213

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I think Monarchy would be terrible, however that is not to say some people who believe in Monarchy can ocassionally write good and interesting ideas, even a broken clock can get it right twice per day.


Somalia and the Failures of Foreign Policy Idealism
https://spectator.org/somalia-the-lions-share/

As utopian dreams of global democracy die, our leaders cling to escapist fables of progress.

Luminaries like Eric Voegelin, Christopher Lasch, and Curtis Yarvin, among others, have proposed that the original intellectual sin of modernity is that of “gnosticism,” which can loosely be defined as “acting in the real world, while thinking in an imaginary world of dreams.” Our dream — for whatever reason — seems to be a world in which Afghans can study pretentious conceptual art and eat soy-flour naan bread, a world in which Somali women are proportionately represented in a Western-style bicameral Golaha Shacabka Soomaaliya. This is, for the foreseeable future, purely a fantasy, sometimes merely absurd, and sometimes quite dangerous.


Even the islamist monarchy of Arab Emirates managed to hitch a space ride to Mars, perhaps one day plant some islamist Quranic type flag there?
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/05/e … parations/
Crazy Americans and Kamikaze Japan investing to make Mars more islamic

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-13 08:46:02)

Offline

#48 2022-04-13 08:38:44

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 3,213

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Arab Emirates Wants to Colonize Mars with islam and guys and groups and nations like Japan, Musk, California and University of Colorado Boulder 'LASP' are going to be stupid enough to export the mohammedan culture and islamism to Mars?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/

Will we one day see the Monarchist Religion Cult exported to Outer Space

Saudi Arabia, a jihadi Islamo theocratic monarchy, has one of the most tightly controlled governments in the world. The country is also home to two of Islam’s most demonic evil Moongod pedophile mohammedan worshiping sites, the cities of Mecca and Medina. The examples of war and slavery and rape and beheading found inside the Quran and the Sunni School of Islam serve as the country’s constitution. Though all the other discussed countries are ruled in some form by a theocratic Islamic Government, the Vatican City is the only country in the world with an absolute theocratic elective monarchy that is guided by the principles of a Christian religious school of thought. The internet and free press has now exposed some of the money laundering, theft and pedophile crimes linked to the Roman Catholic Church and Pope is the supreme power in the country, unlike other Monarch the Pope does not marry, he does not claim to be a Royal Godking who speaks for god yet still sits on a corrupted throne.

Although North Korea is Communist some also consider it a Monarchy. Kim Jong-Un is a Communist and part of a Monarchy Religion Dictatorship? and if that country has 'Democratic' in its title, then why has the Kim family stayed in power since the DPRK’s founding? North Koreans believe that during the occupation by Japanese “imperialists” in 1919, time was stollen....not sure how that works Asian voodoo magic or maybe a time machine? Or did they phrase that part of history wrong, a war that cost blood and treasure in WW2 but they have their own poetic description of history? An even Greater Info Firewall? There is no outside internet, there is only the Best-Korea's internet and only government officials in North Korea have access to the internet. The constitution in a ways defines North Korea as “a dictatorship of people’s democracy” under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), which is given legal supremacy over other political parties. The North Korean people are educated to believe that Kim Il Sung(grandfather of Kim Jong Un) was a kind of devine holy godly leader who can turn stones into grenades during battle and accomplish wonders. North Koreans are oblivious of that fact that he is a dictator. They are made to believe that North Korea is a phenomenally important country, their leader can out score other professional sportsmen, and that Kim Jong il was the world’s most powerful leader.

Monarchy is not our agenda, says Kamal Thapa
https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/mon … amal-thapa

Curtis Yarvin is America’s newest and most controversial political theorist. 
https://wentworthreport.com/2022/04/01/ … -theorist/
“When I invited him to be a guest at that event, he was truly radioactive,” the podcast’s organizer, a young intellectual entrepreneur named Justin Murphy, told me recently. The scene brought out LA art hipsters, connoisseurs of civilizational decline, and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. The billionaire, who was one of the first investors in Facebook and has been a longtime patron of Yarvin’s, drank Pabst Blue Ribbon and ate pizza. Thiel’s car idled outside the club, engine on, driver behind the wheel, ready in case the need arose for a sudden exit. Rumor has it that Thiel takes this precaution wherever he goes, but it was not out of place that evening. Murphy, who spent several years in his 20s participating in militant “black bloc” anarchist protests, was worried antifa might show up to protest the event.

    The night went off without a hitch. Yarvin had chosen an ideal venue to reemerge, with podcasts providing one of the only channels left to reach the public now that the glossy magazines, publishing houses, and other arteries for circulating new ideas had been choked off by the narrowing band of acceptable opinions.

The narrative people hate Yarvin. That’s interesting.

    Starting in the late 2000s, his name — not his real name, he was still known then by his blogging pseudonym — began to be whispered among some of the most powerful people in the country, a secret society made up of disaffected members of the American elite.

    Shortly after Donald Trump entered the White House, reports started to circulate that Yarvin was secretly advising Trump strategist Steve Bannon. His writing, according to one article, had established the “theoretical groundwork for Trumpism.”

    Yarvin denied the rumors, sometimes playfully and at other times strenuously. But he was consistent in his criticisms of the Trumpian approach to politics. Mass populist rallies and red MAGA hats struck him as merely a weak imitation of democratic energies that had already died out. “Trump is a throwback from the past, not an omen of the future,” he wrote in 2016. “The future is grey anonymous bureaucrats, more Brezhnev every year.”

Yarvin had twigged to the fact that modern western societies are run by a decentralized oligarchy of bureaucrats. It’s the bureaucrats.

    What Yarvin is, if one wants to be accurate, is the founder of neoreaction, an ideological school that emerged on the internet in the late 2000s …

    Yarvin possessed a style that, even when discoursing at great length on the gold standard or obscure historical matters, never suggested powdered wigs. He wrote like what he was: a hyperintellectual Ivy League autodidact and wiseass tech geek masking his childhood insecurities with an aura of infallibility, who shared the same set of subcultural and sitcom references found in anyone else his age. At its best, this approach made difficult ideas accessible — not to mention viral.

    In one of his earliest blog posts, Yarvin birthed the now-ubiquitous meme of “the red pill,” a metaphor he borrowed from The Matrix movies and turned into a worldwide catchphrase describing the revelation of a suppressed truth that shatters progressive illusions and exposes a harsh underlying reality.

    In Yarvin’s worldview, what keeps American democracy running today is not elections but illusions projected by a set of institutions, including the press and universities, that work in tandem with the federal bureaucracy in a complex he calls the Cathedral.

    “The mystery of the Cathedral,” Yarvin writes, “is that all the modern world’s legitimate and prestigious intellectual institutions, even though they have no central organizational connection, behave in many ways as if they were a single organizational structure.”

    Living Americans might be able to glean a sense of the phenomenon Yarvin describes in the current public discourse. It has often seemed in recent years that every few weeks has brought a new instance in which journalists and experts instantaneously, almost magically converged on shared talking points related to the hysteria du jour — cycling through moral crusades to free children from cages at the U.S. border, save the post office from a fascist coup, label the filibuster a tool of white supremacy, and so on. The power of the Cathedral is that it cannot be seen because it is located everywhere and nowhere, baked into the architecture of how we live, communicate, and think. …

Who is Yarvin?

    To his readers, his immense, fortresslike body of work offers one of the only redoubts where they can glimpse the realities of power behind the political circus.

    To his skeptics, he is a minor fraud whose claims to be a truth-telling iconoclast belie a fundamental affinity with the status quo. Yarvin’s calls to do away with democracy and turn, say, Elon Musk into America’s new CEO king — that’s just the liberal technocratic system we already have on speed, an acceleration into the most dystopian aspects of the endless neoliberal present. …

    Yarvin is not a nationalist or a populist, nor even a conservative. Rather, he is the signature example of a political theorist born after the death of 20th-century mass political movements, on the unsettled terrain of the internet. Whether you like it or not, Yarvin is the philosopher of, at the very least, our near future. …


'Liars on the Right #5: Curtis Yarvin'
https://attackthesystem.com/2022/04/04/ … is-yarvin/


Jordan's Prince Hamza Renounces Royal Title
https://www.voanews.com/a/6513511.html

How unpopular is the Spanish monarchy in Catalonia?
https://www.catalannews.com/society-sci … -catalonia


Terraformer wrote:

Meanwhile, the leader of Great Britain is on the ropes because he told a lie.  The lie was about hypocrisy, so I suppose the offense was compounded.

The "democratically elected" leader is on the ropes. Elizabeth Windsor, the unelected head of state, is not in any trouble except that caused by her failson.

We are told of Great British Democratic values but what is the difference between guys like Weinstein or Kevin Spacey and people who remain in positions of power are much more difficult to get rid of and have a team of MI6 and Royal Guards and MI5 and Police ciricling to protect them, royals like like Prince Andrew. Johanna Sjoberg claimed Prince Andrew fondled her breast after she sat on his knee, according to documents related to Ms Giuffre's defamation lawsuit against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of global news media mogul Robert Maxwell. Jeffrey Epstein himself dubbed Prince Andrew a 'useful idiot,' so how much tax payer money were they spending? Prince Randy Andy was no stranger to scandals, one woman named Koo Stark perhaps Could have been the first Soft Porn Princess. His wife, Sarah, Duchess of York, disclosed that the Duke helped arrange for the convicted sex offender Epstein to pay off some of her debts. On 30 December 2014, a Florida court filing by lawyers Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell alleged that Prince Andrew was one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with a minor later identified as Virginia Giuffre, who was allegedly trafficked for sex by Epstein. Epstein also maintained long-term relationships with various high-profile individuals, including Donald Trump, Leslie Wexner, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and the British Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Three weeks prior to his death, Epstein was found unconscious in his jail cell with injuries to his neck, power just happened to go out in that power of New York and his Cellmate seems to be something of a mix between Yul Brynner, the Incredibel Hulk and Tony Soprano,  a hulking ex-cop got into a fight with some gangsters and buried them in his backyard, he was facing the death penalty on federal murder and drug charges, another cellmate Bill Mersey revealed that he was once seen with neck abrasions and ate his final meal off the floor. Two cameras in front of Epstein's cell also malfunctioned that night, maybe the Epstein death kept those Royal Prince secrets remain a secret.  His interview with BBC news Emily Maitlis has been described as the biggest public relations debacle for the British royal family since the death of Princess Diana

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-13 08:42:59)

Offline

#49 2022-04-13 08:55:04

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 1,955

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

All monarchies are the legacy of conquest.  They are what you get when another nation invades your nation and wishes to stake a permanent claim on you.  It is unfair, precisely because wealth is distributed by heritage, rather than having earned it.  The conquerors usually try and establish a class system, that keeps them on top.  The British class system and monarchy are basically the degenerate leftovers of the Norman conquest.  I would hope none of that applies on Mars.  When time comes for self government, it should be a constitutional Republic.  The idea of direct democracy is cute, but not very practical.  We need elected rulers who can spend a large part of their lives learning how to govern.  They should respect public opinion, but should also be expected to have a better understanding than the average Joe.


"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Offline

#50 2022-05-09 07:25:11

Mars_B4_Moon
Member
Registered: 2006-03-23
Posts: 3,213

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

An Emperor, Tsar or Queen of Mars?

Russians had many Tsar, also spelled  tzar, or csar, Simeon II, the last tsar of Bulgaria, is the last person to have borne the title tsar he relates to the British Monary through the House of Saxe Coburg und Gotha, titled Siméon de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha.

What do Saudi Arabia, Principality of Andorra, Morocco, Holland Dutch Netherlands, Lesotho an enclaved country surrounded by South Africa, Sultanate of Oman, Spain, Kingdom of Bahrain, Eswatini and formerly named Swaziland, Tonga a Polynesian country and also an archipelago consisting of 169 islands, Thailand, North Korea, State of Qatar, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Bhutan, Mauritania, Sudan and Great Britain the old Empire of England all have in common?


Church of England apologizes to Jews 800 years after?

and what if some guy with a Scottish granma on Mars hates the Monarchy?

https://www.tudorsociety.com/tomb-mary-queen-scots

The complex British heritage of traditional Bishops, priests and deacons.  People link it to Henry but its heritage is older back to  existing in the Roman province of Britain, Gregorian mission to Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury. Anglicanism during the splits between Churches was seen by some peoples as a middle way, or via media, between two branches of Protestantism, Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity. Desmond Tutu and Ted Scott were instrumental in mobilising Anglicans worldwide against the apartheid policies of South Africa. England, Great Britain had a historical internal and external conflict with its Roman Catholic subjects,  only surviving legitimate child of James V of Scotland Mary was six days old when her father diedand her acceding to the throne. She was betrothed to Francis, the Dauphin of France, sent to France safe from invading English forces during the Rough Wooing. he died in 1560 so Mary returned to Scotland in August during a tense Scottish Reformation, turmoil of religious and political climate some openly questioned whether her subjects had a duty to obey her and soon another war kicks off. Mary escaped from Loch Leven Castle with the aid of George Douglas, brother of Sir William Douglas, the castle's owner. Managing to raise an army of 6,000 men, she met Moray's smaller forces at the Battle of Langside  After eighteen and a half years in captivity, Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth in 1586 and was beheaded.  In recent times the German Pope Pope Benedict XVI from Weimar Bavaria issued an apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus, to allow groups of former Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church as members of personal ordinariates. Anglicanism has great building heritage, Solo Organ, a tradition of Choir sings and Artistic heritage and truly has some wonderful looking Christian Buildings.

In the 1200s, another King Henry III forced Jews to get out or show a sign or 'Mark' in England to wear parchment or white linen badges. Many centuries later in the US its cousin or brother an Episcopal Church, based in the United States with additional dioceses elsewhere, is a member church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, it switched names after the US War of Independence or the American Revolution. Contrary to popular misconception, the British monarch is not the constitutional "head" but in law the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England. Anglican English church of Britain renounced Roman Vatican papal authority when Henry VIII wasn't able to make boys with his women, he failed to secure a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1534, in modern  cartoons he was a fat guy who liked to eat lumps of chicken and some of the women got their heads chopped off. The English Reformation accelerated under Edward VI's regents, before a brief restoration of papal authority under Queen Mary I and King Philip and the Act of Supremacy 1558, the Church claims apostolic succession, tracing its bishops back to the apostles via holy orders but has also changed to become a modernized Church once again trying to become a global all peoples brand and allowing the blessing of same-sex marriages, while the Vatican and Queen own most of the land on Earth there are Legal disputes in the US for Episcopal Churches to retain control over its property? Queen Elizabeth I revived the Church of England in 1559, she established a uniform faith and practice. She became a god empress? took the title "Supreme Governor". Members of the US Episcopal Church are now generally more liberal and/or progressive than members of other Christian denominations, the archbishop of Canterbury the senior bishop and principal leadership seems to have embraced stuff like islam to try and become an all persons religion brand.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ … om-england

Eventually, all the Jews in England – 3,000 or so – were expelled under an edict in 1290 by King Edward I. They were not permitted to return for more than 360 years.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-05-09 07:40:20)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB