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?
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
You are going to win this argument, lordseth23. You know everything about empathy.
3489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Dreamscape
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

-Vega- wrote:

I'm tired of arguing.


Yeah it's gone on a while. I'll hold on to that emotional vibration idea, it's a good one.
25210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 1/30/13 , edited 1/30/13
Lovely diversion into spiritual philosophy and such, but back to political philosophy: a monarchy just makes sense, but only if the monarch has real power. Having a single individual empowered to make decisions should presumably lead to decisions actually being made, unlike here in the States. Over here, hundreds of individuals elected to Federal office compete to be the best-paid and least-effective politician available. I'd much prefer one smartass to approximately 700 dumbasses.

*with one caveat: I refuse to be the monarch.
20071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Washington, DC
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

ZenZaku wrote:

Anarchy to me is the state of a society being without a governing body. There are no laws and everyone is equal to everyone else. The idea is sort of like what Lordseth has been saying, people caring and understanding each other and working together to solve the problems of that society. While it's wonderful as an idea the human condition prevents this from ever being a reliable way to run a country or a group of people. The fact is as humans we are jealous, envious, and mainly self-centered beings. SO the peaceful anarchtic society can't happen due to the few people who realize that they can take whatever they want whenever they want and the only people who can stop them are the ones who'd rather live in peace than fight back.


I agree with this quote. People are always trying to improve their state of affairs. If there's an opportunity to take or steal from someone else with little/no consequences, certain people may take that opportunity. I do think that peace and cooperation is the best form of improving society and standard of living, but there are those people who would rather take a shortcut and take advantage of opportunities to selfishly better their own lives at the expense of someone else.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 1/30/13 , edited 1/30/13

moonhawk81 wrote:

Lovely diversion into spiritual philosophy and such, but back to political philosophy: a monarchy just makes sense, but only if the monarch has real power. Having a single individual empowered to make decisions should presumably lead to decisions actually being made, unlike here in the States. Over here, hundreds of individuals elected to Federal office compete to be the best-paid and least-effective politician available. I'd much prefer one smartass to approximately 700 dumbasses.


I think we tend to overlook how well our system works relative to the rest of the world. Sure, there's a lot of red tape, and it isn't ideal. There are a bunch of greedy politicians, and disagreements over the smallest issues.

But the federal/state/local governments are still getting the job done. Our roads and highways still are maintained and built. Our foods are still being screened and held to the highest health standards in the world.

I've been to countries where the quality control is basically a joke, or non-existent. It isn't pretty, you're lucky if you end up with a counterfeit and unlucky if it happens to poison you and kill you.

We still have regulation over crime, traffic laws, rules that limit what a huge corporation can do and what it can put out into the environment.

And on and on and on. We as people naturally focus more on the jobs that are being done poorly, or aren't being done at all. But fail to acknowledge the 90% of jobs that the federal/state/local governments do to make our quality of life better, because it's simply expected to them and gets absorbed by the background noise.
25210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

Winterfells wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

Lovely diversion into spiritual philosophy and such, but back to political philosophy: a monarchy just makes sense, but only if the monarch has real power. Having a single individual empowered to make decisions should presumably lead to decisions actually being made, unlike here in the States. Over here, hundreds of individuals elected to Federal office compete to be the best-paid and least-effective politician available. I'd much prefer one smartass to approximately 700 dumbasses.


I think we tend to overlook how well our system works relative to the rest of the world. Sure, there's a lot of red tape, and it isn't ideal. There are a bunch of greedy politicians, and disagreements over the smallest issues.

But the federal/state/local governments are still getting the job done. Our roads and highways still are maintained and built. Our foods are still being screened and held to the highest health standards in the world.

I've been to countries where the quality control is basically a joke, or non-existent. It isn't pretty, you're lucky if you end up with a counterfeit and unlucky if it happens to poison you and kill you.

We still have regulation over crime, traffic laws, rules that limit what a huge corporation can do and what it can put out into the environment.

And on and on and on. We as people naturally focus more on the jobs that are being done poorly, or aren't being done at all. But fail to acknowledge the 90% of jobs that the federal/state/local governments do to make our quality of life better, because it's simply expected to them and gets absorbed by the background noise.


I have myself visited both rich and poor countries, walked beneath the flags of so-called democracies and empire. I stand by my statement.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

moonhawk81 wrote:

I have myself visited both rich and poor countries, walked beneath the flags of so-called democracies and empire. I stand by my statement.


You're entitled to, I was just weighing in with my opinion.

And I'm grateful we can discuss matters like this openly.

It's not like Ho Chi Minh City where I can get imprisoned just for stating "I think communism in this country sucks" lol.
19954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Oslo
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
We have a constitutional monarchy in Norway - meaning we have a kind but that king is limited in what they get to do. I find this quite reasonable, and it's kind of nice to have that sort of permanent leadership (or should I say it's nicer to have a permanent symbol) because honestly it's more of the groups we elect (by the people) in Norway that makes all the differences.

A kind of monarchy like they have in Swaziland? Yeah noooo... not happening. That shit just needs to be put to an end. It's too easy for kings who are above the constitution to abuse their rights and corrupt everything. I mean that's kind of why we're trying to get rid of monarchy anyway right...? It was just to unstable to begin with.
33648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Delaware, U.S.
Offline
Posted 1/30/13



No, we are not a democratic republic. We're a constitutional republic. America is a country of laws, and our Constitution is the Queen Mum of all laws. It restricts the power of the federal government, states, territories, and Indian reservations. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any state constitution does the word "democracy" ever appear. The word "democracy" didn't appear in a State of the Union address until the Wilson administration.

To put things into perspective, imagine an Old West town. A bank robber is arrested and tried. Under a democracy, the majority votes to put the robber in jail/execute him. Under a republic, the robber is tried before a 12-man jury and they all have to vote guilty or he walks free. Note that I said ALL OF THEM. Not a pure majority. The whole jury. Rule of man vs. rule of law: Which would you prefer?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that point on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most money from the treasury. The end result: Democracies collapse over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
48288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

lordseth23 wrote:


dark_paradox_21 wrote:

There is no form of government better than a benevolent monarchy. Unfortunately it is pretty much impossible to ensure that a monarch STAYS benevolent.


How is it better than a benevolent democracy?


Democracy is the WORST form of government known to mankind. The US is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC which is different.

See, in a democracy, everyone gets a say. That leads to horrible problems and usually 49% of the population gets screwed. It also leads to horrible uses of resources.

Here is an example: A town I lived in had a shipyard. The government significantly cut funding to the shipyard during the recession. The result was that all the support businesses around the shipyard such as restaurants, clothing shops, car dealerships etc. also failed since there were fewer workers able to afford them. Since fewer people were making money, that meant that the town also received less taxes so it could not afford to fix potholes in the streets and maintain parks and such. That caused property values to drop because boarded-up storefronts and bad streets are bad for property values.

Eventually a manufacturing company decided that it wanted to buy land to build a factory in this town while the land was cheap. It would have created thousands of jobs (the population of the area was around 65,000, so that is quite significant). That would have put a lot of people to work, brought a lot of money back to local small businesses (as the factory workers bought things), and with more people working and being taxed, the city would have had the money to do more repairs and restoration projects.

But, some people near the proposed construction site didn't want to deal with construction noise, dust, and the proximity to a factory so a half-dozen people proposed an "environmental" bill to the City council which prevented new construction in the area. The city passed it because in this day and age people blindly jump at environmental and health laws. The factory could not be built, the jobs were never created, and 65,000 people were screwed over because 6 people didn't want to have a view of a factory.

There is your democracy in action. Not everyone is capable of making management decisions. Not everyone can see the side effects of rules and laws that they make. When the city heard of a simple little environmental ordnance, they said, "I like the environment - sounds good" and didn't realize that what they were doing would screw themselves over. Being born does not make people experts on management and does NOT entitle people to a say in how other people live. That is bullshit.

But a benevolent monarchy is guided by one well-educated mind and one vision. There are not multiple conflicting ideas getting half-implemented. 49% of people don't get screwed over in every ruling. If a monarch sincerely cares for his people and is sufficiently educated and wise enough to consult experts when needed to predict the outcomes of his actions, the country will run very smoothly. A single mind guiding development is the most efficient, most fair, quickest, and potentially the cheapest. The only problem is that it is about impossible to ensure that a monarchy remains benevolent.

A republic has representatives from each community govern the land. A Democratic Republic has those representatives chosen by democratic vote. The idea behind this is that you gain the expert management ability of having a specific, knowledgeable ruling class AND the ability for the people to control corruption by voting out bad representatives. Unfortunately that is very inefficient and popularity becomes more important than ability in government so laws and rules are made to support the career of the politicians rather than the needs of the people.
1mirg 
55669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
Technically......every form of government is a monarchy of some kind
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

1mirg wrote:

Technically......every form of government is a monarchy of some kind


I feel like this was meant to sound deep...but just absolutely ends up making no sense.
JP-Nya 
17615 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Melksham, Wiltshi...
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
I really love the British royal family so I wouldn't mind if they regained power. However, the problem with handing total power to an individual is that it only works out for so long; how long before we end up at the whim of a cruel or stupid monarch?
1mirg 
55669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 1/30/13


I feel like this was meant to sound deep...but just absolutely ends up making no sense.


I was not trying to sound deep, or anything the like. I was just stating a technical fact. Which the rule or the power of a government is in the hands of an individual in some sort of fashion.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

1mirg wrote:

I was not trying to sound deep, or anything the like. I was just stating a technical fact
. Which the rule or the power of a government is in the hands of an individual in some sort of fashion.

In that link you gave, it clearly states several types of government where rule isn't bestowed on an individual.

There are many examples given where a type of government doesn't have the power concentrated in an individual but rather a group of people (oligarchy) or several differing branches of government (democracy). These governments, people actually have to answer to other people, and no one has absolute power.
88282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
Can i be king?
1mirg 
55669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 1/30/13


In that link you gave, it clearly states several types of government where rule isn't bestowed on an individual.

There are many examples given where a type of government doesn't have the power concentrated in an individual but rather a group of people (oligarchy) or several differing branches of government (democracy). These governments, people actually have to answer to other people, and no one has absolute power.


"in the hands of an individual in some sort of fashion"

Even if there are several individuals which have a say. A individual still have their hands in the ruling or power of the government. Is what this ment
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.