Under which regime would you have more "freedom?"

Under which regime would you have more "freedom?"

  • An absolute monarchy around 1500

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • An American-style Democratic-Republic in 2019

    Votes: 19 79.2%
  • A constitutional monarchy around 1500

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Total voters
    24
Jan 2009
8,488
In the Past
#41
Constitutional monarchy provides most liberties. It is the most limited form of government. Ancients knew it long ago, they wrote about evils of democracy. Hobbes affirmed it as well.
What liberties are intrinsic to a constitutional monarchy which is not intrinsic to a constitutional republic?
 
Mar 2016
1,207
Australia
#42
Again you keep ignoring the merits and are making it about your feelings.

No, it's chemo to the cancer of authoritarianism. But let me guess because I believe in facts I'm an authoritarian?
I can see that you're never going to accept the fact that you're extreme arrogance is making it impossible to have any reasonable discussion with you, when every sentence you're insisting that you're the one that has all of the facts and everyone else is wrong because they disagree with you. I mean, this is the kind of attitude that a child has, not an adult posting on a history forum. I see no reason to continue this non-discussion, since you'll never stop until I agree with you that you're absolutely right and that everyone should bow to your opinions. What a joke.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,271
#43
Constitutional monarchy provides most liberties. It is the most limited form of government. Ancients knew it long ago, they wrote about evils of democracy. Hobbes affirmed it as well.
whats the basis the one form of government is "more limited" than another.

Constitutional monarchies vary widely. There is not definitional requirement to provide "most liberties:"
 
Jan 2017
1,276
Durham
#46
Think about it: Under an absolute monarchy of about 1500, there simply isn't the technological apparatus for surveillance, espionage, and behavior control that modern technology offers us. A Democratic-Republic in 2019 has a greater potential for restricting the liberty of its people than an absolute monarchy around 1500. The king's word may be law, but the reach of the king travels at the speed of horse, and is carried out by nobles of (often) questionable loyalty. Whereas today, a cell phone call to the police can have deputies on ground in under 20 minutes. Paper documents are far easier to forge than electronically signed and protected passports of today: at one time, all one needed was a razor blade and some glue to make a passable fake ID.

This extends to freedom of the press, and of speech. Although the dark web makes government surveillance difficult from a technological perspective, the ability of a few tech giants to effectively censor speech they don't like (no matter how distasteful that speech may be) is quite a bit of power. I recall the secret newspapers of the French revolution, or Bleeding Kansas and the printing press "wars": shutting down a secret newspaper often meant doing so by violence, potentially costing lives if the newspaper publisher made an ideological stand.

We have one regime that has all the legal power in the world, but relatively limited means of exercising it. And another regime that has all the means of exercising power, but constitutional restrictions on the appreciation of that power.
The point you make surrounding the ability of rulers to control their population through information dissemenation, is a valid one.

Take the reformation in England, it was far easier to ensure the people of Southern England, particularly those living around London; towed the Protestant line. They were simply closer to those aiming to enforce it, and as a result were able to control them through dissemination of information and coercion. Whereas parts of Northern England were deemed to be wild and unreachable. As a result, Northern parts of England were more likely to retain Catholicism, and the legacy is that even to this day Catholicism is much more prevalent in the North of England than it is in the South.

I think today we have more freedom within our own homes. You can do as you please providing it's legal and there is no threat of the King turning up and arbitrarily taking money from you in the name of raising an army or something, nor is your next door neighbour going to accuse of you of being a witch and 10 minutes later the local community is setting fire to your wooden home with you and your children in it.

But, step into the public domain and it's questionable as to whether we have more freedom today. CCTV, airport controls, information held by governments and businesses - all of which are a bit too intrusive for my liking.
 
Jun 2016
1,843
England, 200 yards from Wales
#47
Aren't there different sorts of freedom? On the one hand Government restrictions on what can legally be done are a limitation of some freedom, but they may be a necessary part of ensuring many citizens' freedom from unjust treatment by more powerful individuals or organisations?
For instance there are, in the UK, limitations on running a business from a residential address, a limitation of the occupier's freedom, yet a protection for neighbours' freedom from noise, dirt etc.
 
May 2018
782
Michigan
#49
The point you make surrounding the ability of rulers to control their population through information dissemenation, is a valid one.

Take the reformation in England, it was far easier to ensure the people of Southern England, particularly those living around London; towed the Protestant line. They were simply closer to those aiming to enforce it, and as a result were able to control them through dissemination of information and coercion. Whereas parts of Northern England were deemed to be wild and unreachable. As a result, Northern parts of England were more likely to retain Catholicism, and the legacy is that even to this day Catholicism is much more prevalent in the North of England than it is in the South.

I think today we have more freedom within our own homes. You can do as you please providing it's legal and there is no threat of the King turning up and arbitrarily taking money from you in the name of raising an army or something, nor is your next door neighbour going to accuse of you of being a witch and 10 minutes later the local community is setting fire to your wooden home with you and your children in it.

But, step into the public domain and it's questionable as to whether we have more freedom today. CCTV, airport controls, information held by governments and businesses - all of which are a bit too intrusive for my liking.
I could agree with much of that: within one's home, one has freedom protected by various mechanisms. From the "castle doctrine" (and the political theories behind it) to the fact that in the USA today, we aren't burning people at the stake. However, in public, we may very well enjoy less liberty than under an Absolute Monarchy which lacks the technology.
 
Jan 2017
1,276
Durham
#50
I could agree with much of that: within one's home, one has freedom protected by various mechanisms. From the "castle doctrine" (and the political theories behind it) to the fact that in the USA today, we aren't burning people at the stake. However, in public, we may very well enjoy less liberty than under an Absolute Monarchy which lacks the technology.
Aye, the concept of the protection of property, based largely on John Locke's doctrine that we have a duty to God to not harm the property or person of another, is so entrenched in countries such as Britain and the United States. More so in the United States, as there remains far more scope for the homeowner to defend him/herself. Quite right too.

I think in England though there is one important distinction when it comes to the public domain. We're generally a people who prefer the countryside and have never really been that keen on our towns and cities - which is why they look so haphazard in their planning and structure, and most people want to retire in the countryside. So, they put CCTV in our towns and cities with minimal resistance but try to build a railway link that passes through people's view of the countryside and that's a different matter. They had the Eurostar knocked up in a crack on the French side but on the English side people refused to accept that they can spoil our countryside in the name of 'progress', and it was protested, delayed and rerouted.

So, I retract my statement about the public domain. I think we as a people much prefer our countryside to our towns and cities and as such defend our countryside in a way we don't with our towns and cities.