|
America is somewhere between a plutocracy and an oligarchy.
|
On April 19 2013 23:07 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 21:45 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 21:04 naastyOne wrote: I like the concept of the nominal head of the state not being elected.
It means there is a gathering figure, that doesn`t have to go thrugh all the political system of begging rich people for money, lyeing to voters, and then having to come up with some bullshit reason why s/he can not deliver on any of the promises.
Elected heades of state mean, that only a certain kind of person, can get elected, that can go thrugh the grinder of political system. With monarchy, it is pure random, you can get a crappy monarch, that can not do shit, and would probably just resign anyway, an okayinsh one, that can do all the official stuff, parades, celebrations and such, withot fear of actually communicating with people, like the currently, always victimised and living in a sterilised intraction enviroment politicans, and hence, without having half of country activly disliking that person, or you can get a very decent person, that can have enought moral autority to have certan amount of soft power thrugh advocacy.
IMO, monarchy is a pure win, and i`m perfectly fine with spending 10-20 dollars of my taxes yearly to have monarchy. You can get that also without monarchy. A lot of European countries has basically purely symbolical presidents that are quite often not elected, at least not directly and are supposed to be apolitical. You actually missed the point about monarchs personality having much bigger varriance, did you not? I did not, I considered it to be a con of the monarchy. In the system I am describing the person selected for presidency is someone who is liked by the public and already demonstrated qualities to be a good president (ideally). In monarchy you get random genetic mix and you are stuck with it.
|
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll.
|
The reason Brits and several other countries stick with monarchs is the oldest reason in the world: it works well enough not to worry about. Citizens of countries across the world have lots and lots of problems with how their countries are run. If a monarch doesn't cause many problems which actually affect people's lives (and most of the objections to monarchies are undeniably abstract - not that this makes them wrong) then there is no momentum for replacing them. Even people who oppose them by and large have it as a much lower priority than stuff which causes real life problems (education policy or whatever) and since large populations can't deal with all their problems simultaneously they simply ignore the less urgent issues. I don't blame them, frankly.
|
On April 19 2013 23:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 23:31 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies. That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development. That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen. Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary democracies are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide.
|
On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote: I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll.
You like Fascism?
|
Why wouldn't we want to have a monarchy here? it's rare, it's cool, it's great publicity and tourism, it's part of our county'ies thousand year old history. The royal represent the country within foreign relations and such.
|
On April 20 2013 00:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 23:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: The OP is incredibly dumb, just phenomenally stupid. You do realise than none of the European monarchies have any power at all right, like absolutely none whatsoever to do anything related to politics.
All they are is a hereditary rich family who bring in money to the country, an awful lot like the hereditary rich families America is full of, only ours actually give money back to the people. Lichtenstein! Also Monaco ? I think that proves Europe is actually ruled by aristocrats and we all love it.
The notion is actually funny, as Europe has extremely long history of violently disposing of aristocrats. Some countries have national identity nearly built around that.
|
On April 20 2013 00:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 23:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 23:31 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies. That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development. That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen. Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary republics are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide. I was more talking about actual monarchies versus practical democracies.
|
On April 20 2013 00:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:42 mcc wrote:On April 19 2013 23:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 19 2013 23:31 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 23:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: At least in terms of survival, Republics have a long way to go before they can truly say to be more efficacious than monarchies. That's not really a fair comparison though. Human beings have a long way to go before we can say we are more efficacious than dinosaurs in terms of survival, but I would contend that we've already exceeded them in many ways. The idea of the modern republic(post greek/roman republics) is fairly young and still in development. That's a good point, but I still contend that there is some argument to be had over the long-term benefits of having a democratic Republic over a monarchy. Obviously I prefer the former, but that's more because in theory the democratic Republic can function better in the modern world. But I wonder if democratic Republics, in the long run, will turn out to actually be more beneficial to the well-being and safety of the average citizen. Considering that all first world countries that are monarchies are constitutional monarchies and in reality democracies I would say experimental data seem to suggest that for one reason or another democracies are a good choice data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" If you actually want to differentiate between democratic republics, democratic monarchies and parliamentary democracies I think there is not much to say as differences between them are overshadowed by other differences in justice systems, ... . One of them is probably better than the others, and my guess would be that parliamentary republics are that one, but I think in current practice there are so many more important things that decide about well-being of a nation that this will need to be left for future generations to decide. I was more talking about actual monarchies versus practical democracies. In that case you can probably theoretically argue for the virtues of monarchy, but you won't find any between first world countries. And that is in my opinion quite telling.
|
Dane here. Love the monarchy.
A monarch + Prime minister is in general a lot less expensive than a president, plus they are great diplomats/representatives of the Danish people, especially in Asia were they are worth their own weight in gold in terms of branding "fairy tale" Denmark.
With the current political situation in Denmark, I would rather trust our queen than any of the politicians because as we all know, all politicians are lying deceitful bastards. :D
In theory our monarch has to approve/sign all laws, but in practice, everything passed in the parliament gets auto-signed.
|
American, for background.
Stossel said it best for me regarding a monarchy: "I might not mind presidents behaving like kings -- if they at least made the tough decisions that the government needs to make..." I'd be okay with a monarch if the monarch that ruled were perfectly good. I've too much of a fear that those blessed with "royalty" could too easily gain more and more power and retain tyrannies.
I've always wanted to entertain the idea of a classical republic. But for an entire nation, I don't see it working out well; it's just an idea for the small community I happen to live in. I have to stick to libertarian-conservative principles in general.
Decent enough OP, by the way. I see a little too much bias, but your polls are solid and you explain your opinions to some length.
|
You can't really compare these things. Government types are very different country to country.
|
On April 20 2013 01:12 SoundProof wrote: You can't really compare these things. Government types are very different country to country. Especially considering that in most countries president is just a figurehead and those "tough decisions" are done by prime ministers.
|
On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote: I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism?
Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . .
|
I'm a swede and I support our monarchy. They don't have any real power and they represent our country well. Also I like traditions and Sweden have had a king for a long time. I see more good than harm in it.
|
On April 19 2013 05:15 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:07 Yurie wrote: I'm from one of the monarchies. I have yet to hear an argument for abolishing it that is solid. The modern variant has no power and is a figurehead with less money than large stock owners and less power than elected officials. They bring in a positive in net worth. It's unjust that some people become privileged because of their parents social status Does this not happen in every country?
|
On April 20 2013 01:18 odeSSa wrote: I'm a swede and I support our monarchy. They don't have any real power and they represent our country well. Also I like traditions and Sweden have had a king for a long time. I see more good than harm in it. This, just in Denmark also. We have modern monarchs.
|
Monarchies are tourist attractions plain and simple. There's very little loyalty in Sweden for example, but people see the practical benefits.
|
North Korea is a unitary republic.
|
|
|
|