Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Margno]

I like it. It's my second favorite form of government. At least, absolute, hereditary monarchy is.

Obviously in any proper monarchy monarch is chosen by federal electoral counts/princes.
Or halc-crazed woman living by the pond and lobbing falchion at first person to pass by her abode.

Second one, great idea. The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber, signifying that I, Arthur, should rule the Britons! That is why I am your king! Tell me you wouldn't follow that man into battle!
First one and we're just back to glorified democracy.

[Agiptiota]

An interesting observation is that some far left regimes such as Cuba and North Korea can look like a monarchy in a way.

[Cetacea]

Those who are voting "yes" to monarchy being a good form of government: You realize, that YOU would not be the monarch right?

Why would you want to be in a situation where you have even less of a say than you do now? Do you really want some person you have never met to have ultimate authority over every aspect of your life?

I live in two monarchies ( our traditional one and the British Commonwealth) and am happy to not be the Big cheeses - that shit is too much work, the responsibilty would drive me nutty. That said I know our local chief and I know Queen Liz's representative ( he went to school with some of my older cousins). Its the benefits of living in a small nation but the point is I'm happy with the cultural continuity provided by the monarchs and that they allow me to do as I please whilst under the safety net of the big man.

[Lingang]

No. I don't think monarchies are a good form of government, because what gives the Monarch the right to rule? The birth canal he/she came out of? The people Absolute Monarchies are not citizens, but subjects.

Even Constitutional Monarchies I'm not that fond of. What did the figurehead Kings & Queens do to deserve their high status and wealth? Nothing. Republics and Democracies are better in my opinion.

[The New Sea Territory]

Parliamentary constitutional monarchies are a good form of government because they still leave the representation in the hands of the people.

While still maintaining the cultural significant monarchy.

If that culture is one of tyranny, it should not be continued. Monarchy should be dissolved everywhere.

An interesting observation is that some far left regimes such as Cuba and North Korea can look like a monarchy in a way.

North Korea is certainly dynastic, we'll have to wait and see for Cuba.

Depends on the monarch.

Not really, no. Perhaps over if it functions well or not, sure, but monarchy is under no conditions a form of government we should buy into.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I'm pretty sure he is not talking about constitutional monarchies.

[Pandeeria]

Not really.



That's trival and arbitrary. I don't know why so many people use arbitrary fluff that doesn't mean anything as an argument or justification.



That's also arbitrary and not really helpful. Morality is shit, I could declare that it's immoral. I guess I can just say: See Above.

Why isn't it good?

Why would it be good?

An absolute and constitutional monarchy would just be a hereditary, royal dictator ship. A ceremonial monarchy is just a traditionalist waste of time.

Having the people actually vote, and not making government rule hereditary is a good thing.

[The New Sea Territory]

Obviously in any proper monarchy monarch is chosen by federal electoral counts/princes.
Or halc-crazed woman living by the pond and lobbing falchion at first person to pass by her abode.

Second one, great idea. The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excaliber, signifying that I, Arthur, should rule the Britons! That is why I am your king! Tell me you wouldn't follow that man into battle!
First one and we're just back to glorified democracy.

"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!"

[Lingang]

While still maintaining the cultural significant monarchy.

If that culture is one of tyranny, it should not be continued. Monarchy should be dissolved everywhere.

Agreed.

[Immoren]

First one and we're just back to glorified democracy.

Obviously if it worked in holy Roman empire it'd work for us. *nods*
I didn't know that small council guys&gals voting counts even as "glorified" democracy.

[Greater Weselton]

A monarchy is a neutral form of government. It can be good or bad.

[The New Sea Territory]

First one and we're just back to glorified democracy.

Obviously if it worked in holy Roman empire it'd work for us. *nods*
I didn't know that small council guys&gals voting counts even as "glorified" democracy.

It's a democratically-managed oligarchy?

[The New Sea Territory]

A monarchy is a neutral form of government. It can be good or bad.

Ha. No. I see no reason that a dictatorship + idiotic traditionalism is a good form of government.

[Immoren]

Obviously if it worked in holy Roman empire it'd work for us. *nods*
I didn't know that small council guys&gals voting counts even as "glorified" democracy.

It's a democratically-managed oligarchy?

Wouldn't that be just oligarchy?

[Britanno]

No. No single individual should ever be given absolute power, because Human history has proved that it never ends well.

Because every monarchy in the world is absolute.

[Zottistan]

Depends on the monarch.

Not really, no. Perhaps over if it functions well or not, sure, but monarchy is under no conditions a form of government we should buy into.

Why not buy into a competent monarchy with sufficient legal restraints on the monarch's power?

[Flaxxony]

The most bottom-up society is going to be the best so I don't agree with the idea of a monarchy.

[Greater Weselton]

A monarchy is a neutral form of government. It can be good or bad.

Ha. No. I see no reason that a dictatorship + idiotic traditionalism is a good form of government.

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

[Margno]

First one and we're just back to glorified democracy.

Obviously if it worked in holy Roman empire it'd work for us. *nods*
I didn't know that small council guys&gals voting counts even as "glorified" democracy.

And what happened to the Holy Roman Empire? It was defeated by Napolean at the battle of Asterlitz! So much for your argument.

[Immoren]

The most bottom-up society is going to be the best so I don't agree with the idea of a monarchy.

Bottoms up! society is obviously best. Let the beer flow.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Its possible for a monarchy to be a stable government and its possible for a constitutional monarchy to be pretty free, but at the end of the day, monarchy (at least traditional monarchy) puts some people above others simply because of what family they were born into. Its inherently undemocratic and inherently unjust.

[Andzhalswoodosia]

Very unlikely, even people in the UK and Saudi Arabia are wanting a change of leadership.

[Agiptiota]

In the broadest sense, a monarchy is a government that is stylised as to have a 'monarch'. Some of you realise that just because something is officially or unofficially a monarchy, doesn't mean it's not democratic. A democracy doesn't need an elected head of state, providing those with power are elected. A monarchy does not need to be despotic for it to be classed as a monarchy.

[The Eastern Antarctic State]

Only if they rule over there own homelands and not over other countries, like Australia, so we can be a Republic.

[Atlanticatia]

I'm fine with constitutional monarchy, but absolute monarchy is bad.