Are absolute monarchy and theocracy only irrational and senseless because we look at it with our own biases?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,316
#21
No because a monarch is bound by the nature of his job. The nature of his job is to secure the realm, provide safety and collect income, just like every state ever did. If he does not do that, someone else will and he will no longer be a monarch.
Absolute Monarchs are not or they are not Absolute. He's the sole arbiter of everything. if the Monarch is limited in some fashion thats a conditional monarchy.

It's the accpeted definitions. You want to limit an Absoulate MOnarchg that makes them non Absolute.

besides whats going to stop the monarch from comanding this or that. If they are no cheack and blances ? Anrachy?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,316
#23
Monarch's position stops him from abdicating basic needs. He is limited by abdication.
have soliders does this abdication have? Abstract principles stop no one. Stop signs don;t stop cars, brakes stop cars. So Whats actually going to stop the Monarch? Who and What and how many soldiers do they have?


Monarch is all powerfdul , absolute Monarch nothing stops them from over stepping what you regard as their role. You seem to have some theporitical well behaved Monarch aware of the theoritical limitations of his role.

Well in the real world tings don;t work that way.
 
Oct 2012
458
#25
Monarch's position stops him from abdicating basic needs. He is limited by abdication.
Would you clarify a little?? You mean that troughout history every absolute monarch has only secured the safety of the realm and collected taxes for that purpose?? And if one have ever done anything more than that he has been immediatly replaced
by another monarch who understands the nature of the job? Really?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,316
#26
No, a monarch is not a bandit. You are talking about bandits.
Their an absolute Monarch. It's not a crime if the King does it.

What defines the limitations on teh role of an Absolute Monarch? There is no constitution.

Monarchiaries will eventually, have children, idiots and insane people on the throne.

Who determines when the Monarch is acting properly or not? In An Absoluet Monarch that is the Monarch who decides.
 
Jul 2017
167
USA
#27
Their an absolute Monarch. It's not a crime if the King does it.
.
No, a monarch can not do whatever he wants even in absolute monarchy. You view an absolute monarch as a bandit. A Bandit is not limited by anything except his might, A monarch is limited by his duties, his position, because a monarch rules and ruling precludes doing whatever you want, he cannot be a bandit. I cannot even accept an argument to absurdity to this extent, because one cancels the other.
 
Jul 2017
167
USA
#28
Would you clarify a little?? You mean that troughout history every absolute monarch has only secured the safety of the realm and collected taxes for that purpose?? And if one have ever done anything more than that he has been immediatly replaced
by another monarch who understands the nature of the job? Really?
Yes. If he does not protect the realm, he is not a monarch This is akin to a country without a border. It cannot be.
Same goes for providing safety. If he does not secure peace within, he has bandits running around usurping his power. He is not the sovereign. It cannot be.
And if he does not collect income, how will he manage? There will b others more powerful than him.
 
Oct 2012
458
#29
Yes. If he does not protect the realm, he is not a monarch This is akin to a country without a border. It cannot be.
Same goes for providing safety. If he does not secure peace within, he has bandits running around usurping his power. He is not the sovereign. It cannot be.
And if he does not collect income, how will he manage? There will b others more powerful than him.
Okey,It cannot be. Easy now, all will be good.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,316
#30
No, a monarch can not do whatever he wants even in absolute monarchy. You view an absolute monarch as a bandit. A Bandit is not limited by anything except his might, A monarch is limited by his duties, his position, because a monarch rules and ruling precludes doing whatever you want, he cannot be a bandit. I cannot even accept an argument to absurdity to this extent, because one cancels the other.
you cannot accept the basic definition of an absolute Monarch. You propose that there are constraints but you have not defined very well, his position, his duties, he cannot act like a bandit, whats the definition of the limits of an Absolute Monarch, who gets to decide when he has transgressed them and who gets to act? These is part of teh core problems with Absolute Monarchy bcause there is no mechanism other than violience. If I wrong exoplian how teh system corrects a Monarch who goes too far? Who decides? Who acts?


His duties, his position, these are abstract ideasd which are not forces acting on the Monarch. Can you explain how these constraints are actualised in stopping the Monarch from doing something?

A Monarchy that runs long enough will be ruled at some stage by childrem, idiots or the insane, How does the system work with that?

The force acting on the Monarch is the amry, the nobles, the middle class or lower classes riseing in reblellion or oppoistion. How deos that formally work in an Absolute Monarchy short of actual rebellion?
 

Similar History Discussions