Is monarchy a good form of government?

[The New Sea Territory]

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

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

...

mon·arch
ˈmänərk,ˈmänˌärk/Submit
noun
1.
a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor.

king
kiNG/Submit
noun
1.
the male ruler of an independent state, especially one who inherits the position by right of birth.

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.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

[Agiptiota]

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

Yeah we want to get rid of the Con/Dem coalition. We don't necessarily want the monarch deposed.

[Atlanticatia]

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

In the UK, support for the monarchy is at an all-time high.

The one benefit I can see of a constitutional monarchy is that it provides an apolitical head of state that represents the majority and can provide unbiased constitutional checks on the Government. However, I wouldn't really see a point of converting a country from a republic to constitutional monarchy. But I also don't see a point of converting a constitutional monarchy to a republic with a President. I'm neutral.

[Greater-London]

It depends on the form of Monarchy. Modern constitutional monarchies like the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands are "good" governments; I'm not a fan of monarchy per se but if your going to have parliamentary democracy (and you already have a monarch) then theirs not much use changing them in for a drab non executive president.

[Zottistan]

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.

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Greater Weselton]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

...

mon·arch
ˈmänərk,ˈmänˌärk/Submit
noun
1.
a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor.

king
kiNG/Submit
noun
1.
the male ruler of an independent state, especially one who inherits the position by right of birth.

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.

[Pandeeria]

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

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

Dictators aren't always authoritarian.

[Pandeeria]

...





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.

Dictators can be benevolent with their authority.

[Geilinor]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

...

mon·arch
ˈmänərk,ˈmänˌärk/Submit
noun
1.
a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor.

"Sovereign head of state" doesn't mean authoritarian.

[Greater Weselton]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

Dictators aren't always authoritarian.

They always are authoritarian.

[Margno]

Monarchs aren't always authoritarian.

...

mon·arch
ˈmänərk,ˈmänˌärk/Submit
noun
1.
a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor.

king
kiNG/Submit
noun
1.
the male ruler of an independent state, especially one who inherits the position by right of birth.

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.

You're using authoritarian wrong. It means the state being powerful and exerting heavy restriction over the personal lives of the people.
"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

A monarchy could be either libertarian or authoritarian depending upon which laws the monarch saw fit to pass. Besides which, you could have a weak monarch (like a king in a feudalist society) or a strong monarch.

What monarchism is is inherently undemocratic.

[Pandeeria]

Dictators aren't always authoritarian.

They always are authoritarian.

False. They are not inherently authoritarian.

[Greater-London]

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

Except monarchy does not equate to tyranny. Plenty of world leaders throughout our history have been tyrannical and plenty of our monarchs have not. Contemporary constitutional monarchs do not represent a culture of tyranny but the histories and culture of the places that they "rule"; if those places have a history of tyranny then abolishing the monarchy does nothing to resolve that.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

[Pandeeria]

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

No, ceremonial monarchies are unnecessary and absurd.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

No, ceremonial monarchies are unnecessary and absurd.

That's the same thing.

[The Fascist American Empire]

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?

Isn't that government in general?

[Greater-London]

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

How are they absurd? also the term "unnecessary" needs expansion, how are they any less "necessary" than non executive presidents in parliamentary models of governing.

[Pandeeria]

No, ceremonial monarchies are unnecessary and absurd.

That's the same thing.

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

[Deusaeuri]

No, ceremonial monarchies are unnecessary and absurd.

That's the same thing.

Not all constitutional monarchies are ceremonial.

[Margno]

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

[United Marxist Nations]

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

How are they absurd? also the term "unnecessary" needs expansion, how are they any less "necessary" than non executive presidents in parliamentary models of governing.

Because they serve no purpose. Anything that serves no practical purpose should be gotten rid of.

[Pandeeria]

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 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.

[Greater Weselton]

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

It is better than be ruled by Stalin.