Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Pandeeria]

Then most of the Tsars (except that one that about the 1905 Reform) were pretty competent.

I guess so. That also links into what is a "good" form of government to; as in what does a government have to do in order to be "good"? Does good governing simply mean doing "good" things? afteral there are many MANY forms of government that have done good things, some of which are monarchies. Or does it mean simply one that is able to "govern" efficiently without collapsing? if so then Monarchy is quite good at that.

In my opinion, a "good" government is one that better's it's people's life's. An efficient one is one that could not be overthrown.

[Conserative Morality]

No. Monarchy should be abolished in all of its forms.

[Geilinor]

I guess so. That also links into what is a "good" form of government to; as in what does a government have to do in order to be "good"? Does good governing simply mean doing "good" things? afteral there are many MANY forms of government that have done good things, some of which are monarchies. Or does it mean simply one that is able to "govern" efficiently without collapsing? if so then Monarchy is quite good at that.

In my opinion, a "good" government is one that better's it's people's life's. An efficient one is one that could not be overthrown.

Keeping in mind the definition of the word "efficient", overthrow-ability has nothing to do with how efficient a government is.

[Conserative Morality]

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

I have a pretty long list. What's your preference? Asian, African, or European monarchies?

[Pandeeria]

In my opinion, a "good" government is one that better's it's people's life's. An efficient one is one that could not be overthrown.

Keeping in mind the definition of the word "efficient", overthrow-ability has nothing to do with how efficient a government is.

Generally an efficient government that rules effectively could not be overthrown.

As long as the middle class is liquidated, the lower class is kept perpetually poor and stupid, and the upper class doesn't concede any freedoms to the lower class, the upper class could never be overthrown. It would be the most efficient government.

The only other problem would be outside invaders. Which the Tsars could've easily taken care of if they industrialized and beefed up their technologically poor military.

[Old Tyrannia]

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

I have a pretty long list. What's your preference? Asian, African, or European monarchies?

Let's try European.

[United Marxist Nations]

Many of the Tsars were quite competent; it didn't do much to help the position of the peasantry.

Well no... Russia hasn't been in a perpetual state of revolution/uprising followed by brutal crushing and repression.

And? Does that contradict what I said? The quality of life for most under the Tsar was utter shit.

[Old Tyrannia]

Well no... Russia hasn't been in a perpetual state of revolution/uprising followed by brutal crushing and repression.

And? Does that contradict what I said? The quality of life for most under the Tsar was utter shit.

The quality of life for most under the Soviet Union was not much better, and that's just for the ones who weren't massacred, starved to death or exiled to Siberia.

[Zaldakki]

It makes for a more interesting history in my opinion. But republics are better, just not as interesting.

[Greater-London]

And? Does that contradict what I said? The quality of life for most under the Tsar was utter shit.

Well yes sort of, because as we can see throughout history when people are badly governed they overthrow their leaders. Bad kings more often than not turn into dead kings.

[Old Tyrannia]

It makes for a more interesting history in my opinion. But republics are better, just not as interesting.

But how are republics better?

[Britanno]

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

Saudi Arabia is nothing like the UK, you can't consider them both to be the same.

As for the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... shows.html
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubli ... -high.aspx
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/418 ... -time-high
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/ ... rd-support
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5541

[United Marxist Nations]

And? Does that contradict what I said? The quality of life for most under the Tsar was utter shit.

The quality of life for most under the Soviet Union was not much better, and that's just for the ones who weren't massacred, starved to death or exiled to Siberia.

It was much better; illiteracy (previously making up the vast majority of the population) was reduced almost fully, life expectancy went way up, the state provided education, heavily subsidized housing, and provided free healthcare. And there were all of those massacres, famines, and exiling to Siberia under the Tsars as well. Hell, Joseph Stalin himself spend 7 years exiled to Siberia.

[Zaldakki]

It makes for a more interesting history in my opinion. But republics are better, just not as interesting.

But how are republics better?

Less power in the hands of one man (or woman).

[Deutsch-Brittannia]

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

Three-quarters of the UK support the monarch. Support for a republic is 18%. So you can't really say that the UK wants a change. A better statement would've been a minority in the UK want a change in leadership

[New Acardia]

As long as the government works for the benefit of the people . That the government governs .
Then I am ok with any form that pictural government takes .

[Geilinor]

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

You mean change of Parliament/PM/Cabinet? I'm pretty sure very few people want to change the monarch.

[Greater-London]

Less power in the hands of one man (or woman).

Not at all. President Hollande and President Obama are both more "powerful" than Elizabeth II.

[Rygondria]

depends on the king.

[Zaldakki]

Less power in the hands of one man (or woman).

Not at all. President Hollande and President Obama are both more "powerful" than Elizabeth II.

Well yeah. I think today's constitutional monarchies are fine.

[Shaggai]

Monarchy has its benefits. Absolute monarchy suffers from fewer coordination problems, for one thing. On the other hand, it's unreliable. It's good if the monarch is good, and it's terrible when the monarch is bad.

[Greater-London]

Well yeah. I think today's constitutional monarchies are fine.

I see well then that that sorta refutes the idea that a republic equates to "less power in the hands of one person".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It is absolutely a good, proper, and moral form of government.

This. This is why we are the best of friends.

Looking at history, monarchies have tended to be invariably much better than whatever replaced them, and monarchs have tended to be decent more often than not. In all forms of government, the important thing is to make sure there are checks on the leader's power and no one institution or individual is all-powerful. An executive constitutional monarchy with a Parliament and a politically active monarch seems like the best system for ensuring this to me, but even more autocratic monarchies like Tsarist Russia are preferable to totalitarian republics like the Soviet Union. I can't think of a single traditional monarchy that has been overthrown and replaced by a better government. Not one.

Roman Republic begs to disagree. And I'm talking about when it began with the overthrowing of the Roman Kingdom, not its end.

And? Does that contradict what I said? The quality of life for most under the Tsar was utter shit.

The quality of life for most under the Soviet Union was not much better, and that's just for the ones who weren't massacred, starved to death or exiled to Siberia.

Which does not refute that life in Imperial Russia was shit.

[The New Sea Territory]

...





And "Queen" is just the female variant of a king. By this definition, I will conclude that any legitimate monarchy where the Crown has actual power is inherently authoritarian. Right of Birth is an authoritarian justification for rule.

Monarchs can be benevolent with their authority.

A benevolent dictatorship is still inherently authoritarian.

[Geilinor]

Monarchs can be benevolent with their authority.

A benevolent dictatorship is still inherently authoritarian.

Authoritarianism is favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. A dictator could theoretically protect individual freedoms.