[DChambers]

(11-28-2014 08:25 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 07:29 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 07:17 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

There was a huge thread on this last year - I said aristocracy

I missed it. You can quote yourself. I'm interested in details too. If you say aristocracy, you should explain how you will prevent it from turning into oligarchy, who will decide who gets to be aristocrat etc. The problem with aristocracy is fighting the greedy human nature. The problem with democracy is fighting the stupid human nature. I thought about making an exam to earn your right to vote. I can't figure out how it can objectively determine who is virtuous enough. I will write my conclusions if enough people offer theirs.

The greatest advances in civilisation came within aristocratic governments. Whether it was the roman republic, the italian republics or the British Empire. You've asked me to quote myself, I truly can't be arsed looking through 3000 of my posts. I'm sure there's a search tool on this board that could have been used and I found the below:

Quote:

I'd say Britain's system of government between the end of the English Civil War post Oliver Cromwell (Return of the monarchy) and the start of World War 1 was the best system in place. Even though power was held in the hands of few family dynasties and those landowners, a common man could still make his money and make his way to the top. However the actual qualities that were passed down in families were great as they all aspired to certain roles that their families had achieved before. It's a bit difficult for me to explain right now as I've just come off a long course but I'll expand further on another day and explain how the Empire expanded so fast because of this form of government and how this form of government enabled it to keep a hold of the majority of it's conquests.

Quote:

The empire's wealth was derived from mercantilism, even though Adam Smith debunked quite a bit of it (a lot of his debunking was criticism of things that did not actually exist). The empire ensured that London became the financial centre of the world by using mercantilism. Other large nations were not seen as states to trade with but as competitors, the government worked side by side with merchants to ensure that gold and silver flowed into the kingdom from colonies, whilst subsidising domestic industries and of course the primary function financing the powerful Navy and Armies. Each colony would finance it's own army which would be under the command of the centralised government in London.

Couple of things which ensured the political structure in the country to get to it's powerful aristocratic stage was the English Restoration, William of Orange invading England (at the behest of Parliament) and the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland which had until that point been held under a personal union of the monarch. In comparison, the powerful French and the huge Spanish empires at the time were run under absolute monarchies with administration handled by hand picked ministers and armies headed by generals who were from the royal family.
The Restoration got rid of hated military rule and brought all three kingdoms back under a monarchy. William of Orange invading led to the Glorious Revolution which brought Parliament powers and sent the three kingdoms on their way to a more constitutional monarchy. Another effect of this was that it removed the incumbent Roman Catholic ruler who was easily influenced by Rome and France and brought a Protestant back onto the throne. The Bill of Rights was made effective in 1689, which meant a monarch could never hold absolute power. A standing army under the control of Parliament was created (however the Crown has executive power within the army, it's weird), the monarch had to take a Coronation Oath to ensure that laws created by Parliament were adhered to. The Act of Settlement created the 3 elements of parliament, the crown, Lords and Commons. Finally the Union of 2 of the 3 kingdoms created the start of the political structure that exists today in UK. One single parliament in London was created, the Lords was the more powerful house with the Commons making legislation the Lords acted as check on government laws. Of course the King/Crown was involved in this procedure by being able to put peers into the house of Lords. The King would chose a group of ministers and these ministers needed the support of the Commons and Lords to run the country, the prime minster eventually came from these group of ministers.

Of course the real dominance came because of the aristocracy I talked about before, the ministers were some of the most intelligent men in the land and governance of the country from Walpole to the two Pitt's were some of Britain's greatest. We'll find it difficult now to replicate the power of the army due to the generals who were in charge. These men were trained from birth to be admirals/generals and learned the ways of war throughout the ages before leading an army. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) learned his trade in India, practically running over the whole subcontinent before his Napoleonic engagements. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Anson (who supplied armies worldwide during a period in 1760's when the British were involved in wars everywhere). Admiral Parker who captured Nanking and many others were all trained in the naval arts at the Royal Navy. The Duke of Marlborough was the premier general at his time ahead of contemporaries such as Prince Eugene, his knowledge and military strategies were passed on to others like Wellington and Robert Clive within the British Army.
The aristocracy fueled the army and navy with great leadership, this was a constant within both the military institutions which guaranteed supremacy around the world.

I'm a bit exhausted so will continue later on the common man and how his life improved under this government which was not really a democracy nor a monarchy.

A few points.

1. You seem to make the argument that Britain's rise was due to its government. I disagree, its rise was due to its position as a dominant maritime power and colonial power which allowed it to prosper. Compared to Europe it was a haven for freedom, but compared to the U.S. it was highly restrictive. You could not advance all that far in Britain without a distinguished family name, lacking that there was only so far you could rise in government.

2. British generals as a rule never reached the levels of greatness as their European and American counterparts, particularly the French. Wellington and Robert Moore are the only British Generals of the 1800's to be well known for their service and who faced professional armies rather than native rabbles. Indeed, part of the reason is that things like military competence is not necessarily something that can be taught, history is riddled with examples of generals who were raised as soldiers from birth who choked when faced with an enemy. The Austrians, the Germans, the British, and the Russians all had generals who were drawn mainly from the aristocracy. France meanwhile following the Revolution was able to dominate the continent thanks to the unrivaled genius of Napoleon, who rose to power based off of merit. Indeed, many of Napoleon's greatest Marshals were drawn from the Lower classes and proved through natural abilities coupled with experience to dominate their aristocratic counterparts. The American generals of the Civil War have a far better record than their British counterparts. Of the American generals only the greatest, Robert E. Lee, could be considered coming from an aristocratic background.

3. Without removing the influence of a private central bank, you leave an aristocratic government like Britain open to the same slow decay as it faced historically. British dominance was based off of the Bank of England manipulating the currency and loaning money to various countries and companies. Although this gave them massive influence, it also was the major factor in their decline when debt increased and the Bank of England tightened the money supply.