Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Liberal Liberals]

All forms of government can be good. It all depends on the competency and character of those in charge.

Its interesting how manyancient writers characterized democracy as one of the worst governments. Because just liketoday people lack the wit to manage their own affairs why should they be in charge of managing others.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's the same thing.

Constitutional Monarchies are Absolute Monarchies with some constitutional restraints and limits.

Thank you for the correction.

[Greater-London]

I currently have no say. No American election has ever turned on one vote, not once, in history. My political power is exactly zero.

Except not having the final say on something, or deciding the outcome doesn't equate to "no political power".

[United Marxist Nations]

No; absolute monarchies are stupid, and constitutional monarchies are unnecessary and absurd.

It is better than be ruled by Stalin.

The Russian Empire's people disagree; they're standard of living went waaaaaaaaaaay up when Stalin implemented a lot of his policies.

[Avenio]

I'm not an enormous fan. We're living in the 21st century - surely we've developed enough as a culture to move on from having the descendants of the local upjumped 9th century bandit chief as heads of state.

[Greater-London]

The Russian Empire's people disagree; they're standard of living went waaaaaaaaaaay up when Stalin implemented a lot of his policies.

Except that's not really an argument against "monarchy" as such its an argument for competent monarchs.

[Avenio]

I currently have no say. No American election has ever turned on one vote, not once, in history. My political power is exactly zero.

What, you think your opinion's so important that it should outweigh the votes of every other person in a country? Mighty egotistic of you.

[Pandeeria]

The Russian Empire's people disagree; they're standard of living went waaaaaaaaaaay up when Stalin implemented a lot of his policies.

Except that's not really an argument against "monarchy" as such its an argument for competent monarchs.

What do you define as competent monarch?

Several Tsars were efficient at ruling and simply treated the peasants like shit, after all lowering the standard of living quells possible uprisings.

[United Marxist Nations]

The Russian Empire's people disagree; they're standard of living went waaaaaaaaaaay up when Stalin implemented a lot of his policies.

Except that's not really an argument against "monarchy" as such its an argument for competent monarchs.

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

[Alexandreon]

I'd like to point out that Wilhelmine Germany and Austro-Hungary were constitutional monarchies. The existence of a constitution is not, per se, sign of liberalism and democracy. UK, Norway, Sweden and so on and so forth (read: all or almost all- unsure about Lichtenstein- contemporary Western monarchies) are parliamentary monarchies, in which it is the parliament and government responsible both politically and constitutionally before the legislature that has the real power.

That being said, a monarchy has almost no political power, except extraordinary circumstances. And referring to the "cost-effectiveness ratio" evoked by some opposers of monarchies. I am not so certain if republican regimes are cheaper to finance. Personally I will not cast a vote, since I consider the OP's question way too unspecific to give answer.

[Margno]

I currently have no say. No American election has ever turned on one vote, not once, in history. My political power is exactly zero.

Well, that's false. You can try to be a representative that gets elected, and since you vote, you do have political power, regardless of how little it is.

I don't have political power because it's impossible for there to be a situation in which the country does a different thing if I take one sort of action at the polls than if I take another or remain inactive. I also can't be elected to office unless my views happened to be what the country was going to do anyway, meaning that even if I run for office, I still don't have any power. The nation does. The power of the individual in any sufficiently large democracy is zero. And that's the power of every individual. We've ignored people, which do exist, and enslaved ourselves to a subhuman, subrational and submoral abstraction we call the nation.

[Greater-London]

What do you define as competent monarch?

Several Tsars were efficient at ruling and simply treated the peasants like shit, after all lowering the standard of living quells possible uprisings.

I mean if you can rule efficiently with nobody challenging you then you are a competent ruler. Whether you maintain that position by being nasty or nice it doesn't change the fact that you are a competent monarch.

[Pandeeria]

Well, that's false. You can try to be a representative that gets elected, and since you vote, you do have political power, regardless of how little it is.

I don't have political power because it's impossible for there to be a situation in which the country does a different thing if I take one sort of action at the polls than if I take another or remain inactive. I also can't be elected to office unless my views happened to be what the country was going to do anyway, meaning that even if I run for office, I still don't have any power. The nation does. The power of the individual in any sufficiently large democracy is zero. And that's the power of every individual. We've ignored people, which do exist, and enslaved ourselves to a subhuman, subrational and submoral abstraction we call the nation.

Collective Power comes from human nature, something that politics cannot fix.

Also, just because your an individual doesn't mean you have no power. You could attempt to collectively change the minds of everyone around, or if you feel like it, lead a coup or some shit.

[Geilinor]

That's the same thing.

Constitutional Monarchies are Absolute Monarchies with some constitutional restraints and limits.

A constitutional monarchy is any monarchy with constitutional limits on royal power. A ceremonial monarchy is a type of constitutional monarchy.

[Pandeeria]

What do you define as competent monarch?

Several Tsars were efficient at ruling and simply treated the peasants like shit, after all lowering the standard of living quells possible uprisings.

I mean if you can rule efficiently with nobody challenging you then you are a competent ruler. Whether you maintain that position by being nasty or nice it doesn't change the fact that you are a competent monarch.

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

[Margno]

I currently have no say. No American election has ever turned on one vote, not once, in history. My political power is exactly zero.

What, you think your opinion's so important that it should outweigh the votes of every other person in a country? Mighty egotistic of you.

I think my opinion's so important that it should outweigh the votes of every other person in the country in determining what I do. Yours too.

[Pandeeria]

Constitutional Monarchies are Absolute Monarchies with some constitutional restraints and limits.

A constitutional monarchy is any monarchy with constitutional limits on royal power. A ceremonial monarchy is a type of constitutional monarchy.

Within a ceremonial monarchy, the "monarch" has no practical power.

A constitutional monarchy stills grants the monarch moderate to vast amounts of power.

[Margno]

I don't have political power because it's impossible for there to be a situation in which the country does a different thing if I take one sort of action at the polls than if I take another or remain inactive. I also can't be elected to office unless my views happened to be what the country was going to do anyway, meaning that even if I run for office, I still don't have any power. The nation does. The power of the individual in any sufficiently large democracy is zero. And that's the power of every individual. We've ignored people, which do exist, and enslaved ourselves to a subhuman, subrational and submoral abstraction we call the nation.

Collective Power comes from human nature, something that politics cannot fix.

Also, just because your an individual doesn't mean you have no power. You could attempt to collectively change the minds of everyone around, or if you feel like it, lead a coup or some shit.

Well fine! Maybe I will lead a coup!

[Greater-London]

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.

[Margno]

I currently have no say. No American election has ever turned on one vote, not once, in history. My political power is exactly zero.

Except not having the final say on something, or deciding the outcome doesn't equate to "no political power".

That is literally the only thing that political power is. Ability to enact change. Anything else only exists in your head.

[Pandeeria]

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.

If I was a Tsar I could've easily keep the monarchy going.

[Geilinor]

A constitutional monarchy is any monarchy with constitutional limits on royal power. A ceremonial monarchy is a type of constitutional monarchy.

Within a ceremonial monarchy, the "monarch" has no practical power.

A constitutional monarchy stills grants the monarch moderate to vast amounts of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#Executive_monarchy_versus_Ceremonial_monarchy

There exist at least two different types of constitutional monarchies in the modern world - executive and ceremonial.

[Pandeeria]

Within a ceremonial monarchy, the "monarch" has no practical power.

A constitutional monarchy stills grants the monarch moderate to vast amounts of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#Executive_monarchy_versus_Ceremonial_monarchy

There exist at least two different types of constitutional monarchies in the modern world - executive and ceremonial.

I see.

I still prefer to look at Constitutional Monarchy as different from Ceremonial though.

[Greater-London]

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.

[Old Tyrannia]

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.