No true scotsman?
Advertisement
by The Glass Hills » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:03 pm
by Shaggai » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:09 pm
by Nord Amour » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:16 pm
by Rutuba » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:43 pm
Nord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
by Lorkhan » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:48 pm
The Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?
by Shaggai » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:05 pm
Rutuba wrote:Nord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
by Nord Amour » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:07 pm
Rutuba wrote:Nord Amour wrote:Of course not. Silly, European nationalism can never justify such a barbaric form of government. In modern society, people will almost always rebel against despotism.
Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
by The Rich Port » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:30 pm
by Distruzio » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:41 pm
The Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
by The Rich Port » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:42 pm
Distruzio wrote:The Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
by Shaggai » Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:46 pm
Distruzio wrote:The Rich Port wrote:It could be, but it would take a lot of modification.
One big problem that always happens in monarchy is that power is too concentrated at the top.
If the monarch is assassinated, especially without heirs, then shit goes crazy. And even with designated heirs, people start fighting about who is the legitimate heir, leading to nothing being accomplished.
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
by Herastadt » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:21 pm
by New Terricon » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:26 pm
by Distruzio » Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:45 pm
Shaggai wrote:Distruzio wrote:
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
Except that in democracies, you generally don't have a civil war over it.
by Rutuba » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:27 am
Shaggai wrote:Rutuba wrote:Despotism can appear under both monarchy and republic. In fact, regimes usually considered to be totalitarian usually happened in countries which had toppled their monarchs. For some reason
That's because the word totalitarian is almost never used with regards to monarchies. They're called absolute monarchies instead.
by Great Kleomentia » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:53 am
by Distruzionopolis » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:02 am
The Rich Port wrote:Distruzio wrote:
As opposed to a representative democracy where the opposition gains control of congress and becomes obstructionist as well? At least, in a monarchy, the question of accomplishing things in the midst of a succession contest is a big "if". In a democracy, its a given.
And in case you skipped out on Democracy 101, that's why it works better than a monarchy.
Checks and balances, division of power, etc. Go read a civics book.
by Norstal » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:08 am
The Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?
Distruzionopolis wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
And in case you skipped out on Democracy 101, that's why it works better than a monarchy.
Checks and balances, division of power, etc. Go read a civics book.
I can't help but smile. Obstructionism is why democracy works better than monarchy? Haven't heard that defense of democracy yet.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Distruzionopolis » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:11 am
Norstal wrote:Distruzionopolis wrote:
I can't help but smile. Obstructionism is why democracy works better than monarchy? Haven't heard that defense of democracy yet.
Do I need to copy and paste my arguments again? I already told you that competition is what makes democracy great. Obstructionism is just part of it.
Although the alternative of obstructionism in monarchy are succession plots and intrigues.
by Martean » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:11 am
by Immoren » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:12 am
Martean wrote:Why should a person have its life solved, and more power just becouse their parents were who they were?
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Arztoztka » Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:14 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Bracadun, Faisol, Franovia, Homalia, Ineva, Kubra, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Nivosea, Panagouge, Saiwana, Shrillland, Tiami
Advertisement