Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden
@Perun: righty-right! but there's more to decide as to how the system works below the level of Emperor/King. The crucial point is: who is to form part of the aristocracy?
|
I've always been in favor of what is called a service aristocracy. That is one earns their titles through service to the state and the monarch rather than purely through birth.
Quote:
|
@Mynydd: umm, sounds like the kind of corporatism proposed by early Falangism or Carlism.
|
Whats wrong with corporatism?
Quote:
|
I believe in this but not in universal suffrage.
|
Universal suffrage can only work at local levels. Trying to decide important issues at the national level(especially foreign policy) through universal suffrage is a big mistake. Besides I believe monarchies are actually more prone to popular pressure than democracies anyways, since the illusion is that whatever a democratic government does is the will of the people(even though that's hardly ever the case these days). Hilaire Belloc had an interesting theory concerning the relationship between monarchy and democracy, that rather than being opposed they really complement each other and a balance was needed. For monarchy provided the effective leadership at the national level so to make it possible for democracy to take root at the local levels and that monarchy provided the greatest bulwark for the defense of the common man(who represents true democracy) from oligarchs who abuse their powers. Its explained better here:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_bellocian.htm