First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Monarchy, should we have a king?
Posted 1/29/13

-Vega- wrote:


RawrAlex wrote:

CarboKill the king and RawrAlex the queen.


Really?


Yes, we would be perfect.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

-Vega- wrote:


trinkit wrote:

America has a King, his name is Obama. By using Executive Orders which bypass the legislative and judicial branches of government, his wishes become Royal Decrees.


This is true.



You're both stupid. Just wait until I am the supreme fascist dictator of the world, only then will you know true subjugation while you grovel before me. Mwah ha ha ha ha!
But really, I mean it; I'm totally going to enslave the planet.
26733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

lordseth23 wrote:


mhibicke wrote:
Just wait until I am the supreme fascist dictator of the world, only then will you know true subjugation while you grovel before me. Mwah ha ha ha ha!
But really, I mean it; I'm totally going to enslave the planet.


You must be the third antichrist that Nostradamus predicted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK2CaXPWojA


I didn't want to spend 44 minutes watching that, but I'll agree anyway. The first two antichrists had nothing on me! I'm starting my planetary takeover bid with a horde of genetically modified monster rats.
toxxin 
38083 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / In my own little...
Offline
Posted 1/29/13
I was gonna write a long paragraph about why monarchies work better than democracies but no one would read it anyways so ill sum it up in 2 sentences. 1 Just how many democracies have lasted past the 1000 year mark compared to monarchies? 2 Humans need leaders(for the US our leaders just cycle every 4-8 years), while many dont want to admit it without someone to follow society would collapse.
Side note: A monarchy is just a dictatorship that lasted more than one generation.
Posted 1/29/13
yeah what's better a monarchy or a democracy... well seeing as though democracy is nearly non existent and monarchies end up enslaving and stealing from neighbouring countries and it's populace as well as holding substantial wealth and power that they will probably not be willing to use fairly in their country. neither. people need to stop looking for fucking solutions from other people and live freely without being attached to some form of authority, it's hardly worked in the past and it never will.
31425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

toxxin wrote:

I was gonna write a long paragraph about why monarchies work better than democracies but no one would read it anyways so ill sum it up in 2 sentences. 1 Just how many democracies have lasted past the 1000 year mark compared to monarchies? 2 Humans need leaders(for the US our leaders just cycle every 4-8 years), while many dont want to admit it without someone to follow society would collapse.
Side note: A monarchy is just a dictatorship that lasted more than one generation.


How would society collapse? Why can't everyone be a leader?
Posted 1/29/13
Anarchism and socialism seem good, there should be no hierarchy that gives power to evil people and allows for no one to take it away without collective effort or the individual's refusing to be used by it.
18614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/13 , edited 1/29/13

lordseth23 wrote:How would society collapse? Why can't everyone be a leader?


It wouldn't really collapse. A leader only exists to force an unfair solution to a problem. For example, say there are two farmers. One spent his time and money on researching modern farming methods and buying a tractor. The other spent his time and money on getting married and having kids. Now, there is a sudden famine, and a leader is called upon to look into the problem. He'll discover that the second farmer could have increased food output, which would help with the famine.

So, the leader approaches the farmers and explains the situation. The first farmer will say to let him buy the second farmer's land cheaply, and he will do his work as the superior farmer to increase food output. The second farmer will say to let him lease the first farmer's equipment cheaply, and he will use it to implement the more modern farming methods for increased food output. Each farmer will find the other's solution unfair. "If I sell my land, I will lose my livelihood," or, "All my hard work will have benefited my competitor more than me."

Unfortunately, we want someone who can bully them into accepting one of the solutions, so we can alleviate the famine. We want a leader.

And well, everyone being a leader is just going to be "too many chiefs, not enough indians." A leader isn't a leader if he can't bully everyone else into doing what he says.
31425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

Kavalion wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:How would society collapse? Why can't everyone be a leader?


It wouldn't really collapse. A leader only exists to force an unfair solution to a problem. For example, say there are two farmers. One spent his time and money on researching modern farming methods and buying a tractor. The other spent his time and money on getting married and having kids. Now, there is a sudden famine, and a leader is called upon to look into the problem. He'll discover that the second farmer could have increased food output, which would help with the famine.

So, the leader approaches the farmers and explains the situation. The first farmer will say to let him buy the second farmer's land cheaply, and he will do his work as the superior farmer to increase food output. The second farmer will say to let him lease the first farmer's equipment cheaply, and he will use it to implement the more modern farming methods for increased food output. Each farmer will find the other's solution unfair. "If I sell my land, I will lose my livelihood," or, "All my hard work will have benefited my competitor more than me."

Unfortunately, we want someone who can bully them into accepting one of the solutions, so we can alleviate the famine. We want a leader.

And well, everyone being a leader is just going to be "too many chiefs, not enough indians." A leader isn't a leader if he can't bully everyone else into doing what he says.


Why can't both farmers accept any alternative that will help alleviate the famine? There is no need to bully people when everybody can collectively agree on a solution.
3351 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / aruba
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

Kavalion wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:How would society collapse? Why can't everyone be a leader?


It wouldn't really collapse. A leader only exists to force an unfair solution to a problem. For example, say there are two farmers. One spent his time and money on researching modern farming methods and buying a tractor. The other spent his time and money on getting married and having kids. Now, there is a sudden famine, and a leader is called upon to look into the problem. He'll discover that the second farmer could have increased food output, which would help with the famine.

So, the leader approaches the farmers and explains the situation. The first farmer will say to let him buy the second farmer's land cheaply, and he will do his work as the superior farmer to increase food output. The second farmer will say to let him lease the first farmer's equipment cheaply, and he will use it to implement the more modern farming methods for increased food output. Each farmer will find the other's solution unfair. "If I sell my land, I will lose my livelihood," or, "All my hard work will have benefited my competitor more than me."

Unfortunately, we want someone who can bully them into accepting one of the solutions, so we can alleviate the famine. We want a leader.

And well, everyone being a leader is just going to be "too many chiefs, not enough indians." A leader isn't a leader if he can't bully everyone else into doing what he says.


not everyone is fit to become a leader, some people will just act according to their own interest and some times those interests are at cost of some else's happiness. someone has to raise up, some one with power and talent...firstly,he needs powers so that people can recognize him, second, so that people can trust that leader. can't even imagine how awful this world would be if they were no leaders, no laws, no anything, just a complete chaos and a race of people trying to survive
18614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

lordseth23 wrote:Why can't both farmers accept any alternative that will help alleviate the famine? There is no need to bully people when everybody can collectively agree on a solution.


Because each solution is unfair to one of the farmers, it would rely on one farmer being self-sacrificing enough to go for it. Indeed, there is no reason to bully anyone if they're already willing to make the sacrifices expected of them. I believe there is a story of Jesus highlighting this concept by passing a bowl of food around, telling the people gathered to take from the bowl if they didn't have enough food, but to add to the bowl if they had food to spare.

Jesus believed in accepting what was unfair if it would promote peace and harmony. This basically entails one of the farmers swallowing their natural pride and avarice and making a sacrifice for the sake of the other farmer's food production, since it would help alleviate the famine. If that happens, there is no need for someone powerful to force that decision on one of them.
33648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Delaware, U.S.
Offline
Posted 1/29/13

longfenglim wrote:

Contrary to all other posters here, I agree we should adopt a Monarchy.

It is clear that democracy is a failure, and the reason has been noted by almost all political theorist, including the founders of this republic, who, seeing that the uneducated mass, know, instinctively, not to give them any power.

The monarch, being almost completely divorced from the hoi polloi, would be the ideal ruler of any state, which explains the longevity of Monarchies, and its abundance.

That Monarchies come natural to man can be clearly shown by the fact that every civilisation, no matter how seperate they are, have adopted, in part, a form of monarchy, from Persia to Greece to China, where democracy is a taste unnaturally planted onto the soul.


Monarchies are a waste of the taxpayers' money, they're unaccountable, they demand deference (Which we rebelled against England to get away from), they effectively endorse ethnic/religious/gender discrimination, and they just plain make otherwise modern nations look backwards (I'm looking at you, England).

Democracy is just as bad. It's no more than mob rule. A tyranny of the majority. Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

That's why America is a constitutional republic instead. We're a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Nor are we a nation of aristocrats and nobles. We've never had feudalism in this country; why should any nation have such a backward, unequal system? Instead, we looked to India (The Vajji Confederacy predates the Roman Republic), Greece, Rome, and the Iroquois Confederation.
Posted 1/29/13 , edited 1/29/13


excellently said.
Posted 1/29/13
we do need a king, and we need it to be ME!!!! c:<
wyrvan 
33178 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/13
Emperor Norton of the United States

The only true American monarch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_the_United_States

8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 1/29/13
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.