Monarchy vs Republic

[Distruzio]

Someone take a wild guess which I'd vote for...

How's your buddy Kim Jong-Un doing?

As well as could be, I guess, given the society over which he and his uncle rule. Funny, I don't recall singing the praises of Best Korea before.

[The USOT]

How's your buddy Kim Jong-Un doing?

As well as could be, I guess, given the society over which he and his uncle rule. Funny, I don't recall singing the praises of Best Korea before.

I think its become a bit of an NSG joke based off you being perhaps one of the most ardent monarchist supporters, and North Korea`s strange monarchist society. Because your eccentric and NK is eccentric, somehow the two become linked =p

I seem to recall the same joke made in another thread actually...

[Chinese Regions]

How's your buddy Kim Jong-Un doing?

As well as could be, I guess, given the society over which he and his uncle rule. Funny, I don't recall singing the praises of Best Korea before.

You just did. Anyway North Korea is a clear example of your posts on autocracies being the bastions of freedoms, oh wait, they claim they're a democracy don't they? You're not His Excellency, General Colonel Doctor Aladeen, Democratic President-For-Life, Invincible and All-Triumphant Commander, Chief Ophthalmologist, Brilliant Genius of Humanity, Excellent Swimmer Including Butterfly, and Beloved Oppressor and Ruthless Protector of the Precious and Expendable People of Wadiya, are you?
Oppression is freedom!

[Distruzio]

As well as could be, I guess, given the society over which he and his uncle rule. Funny, I don't recall singing the praises of Best Korea before.

I think its become a bit of an NSG joke based off you being perhaps one of the most ardent monarchist supporters, and North Korea`s strange monarchist society. Because your eccentric and NK is eccentric, somehow the two become linked =p

I seem to recall the same joke made in another thread actually...

That is strange. I'm not a monarchist, though.

[Seleucas]

What about Mao and Hitler? They are the types I am describing, who can gain the sympathy from the public to enact their evil designs. And I brought consent into it to differentiate between why you might want a good accountant but you may not want someone who is the most effective at controlling the state to be in power; you would want your accountant to be as good as possible, but you probably do not want someone to do well at imposing policies you do not support. (And just because a large group supports something, does not mean you necessarily consent to it. In fact, just because you vote for something does not mean you really consent to it, for instance if the person is the lesser of two evils, and they may still act outside of your preferences.)

And yet you want a leader that is like that.
Sure I must take into consideration what a person supports but ultimately, people should be hire based on their skill and how well they do their job, hereditary rule is not that. You don't consent for any government, but democracy is the closest to it, autocracy on the other hand is not.

No, I want a leader who is more concerned with the history of locksmithing, while the likes of Adolf Hitler and Mao are confined to being starving artists and peasants, respectively, where they will have trouble exercising their powers of persuasion and organization to evil effect. A king of a monarchy is more or less chosen on a lottery, where the next king could be of any temperament, but having free entry into the heights of power will ensure that the most vicious types will climb their way up... and that they will be able to consolidate their power in the general public while the masses would be inherently distrustful of someone born into such a different status than they. And I do not consider democracy to be any closer to a form of consent than royal monarchy (and some flavor of autocracy is found in any system of government; any organization is going to need unity or it will fail.) A king is about as likely to listen to a suggestion of mine as my vote is to change the outcome of an election, possibly even more considering that my chance of changing the outcome of a presidential election is about the same as winning the Powerball Lottery 128 times in a row.

That is the point; any system will define the laws as it wishes. But ultimately some systems of government are more effective in implementing their policies than others. A king can often be ineffective, and opposed by disparate groups in society without any of them being able to take control themselves. But an open system, where one can climb the ranks, will tend to attract the most vicious sort of people to the very top.

Now you are describing constitutional monarchies where the monarch does absolute shit i.e the UK is is a democracy, but you want absolute monarchy, do you not? Take a look at Saudi Arabia and North Korea, you think their leaders are ineffective at implementing their policies? I think not.
'Climbing the ranks' is why the USA is so powerful in many aspects. 'Climbing the ranks' attracts people who are fitted for the jobs. Again think of a state as a company, you want promotions because you are good at your job. Don't want corrupt tyrants ruling? Like I said measure all aspects.

Did I say I wanted an absolute monarchy? No. But neither do I want one where the monarchy is utterly emasculated; that is the same kind of monarchy that Britain was when it blundered into the First World War. I want a monarchy where the power of numbers can be balanced by the authority of one person, something more like when each house of Parliament and the King can restrain one another, or something like the Dutch republic where power was decentralized among the provinces and a de facto king's power was balanced by the aristocrats and commons who chose who to send to their States-General (their Parliament.) Also, North Korea is not a monarchy; there's nothing royal about it, but given the choice, I would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, over North Korea, a Marxist dictatorship where one has no chance of opposing the organized and consolidated Communist Party.

Besides, I would question if the US is really the best example for a purely republican system with free entry to office; it more or less blundered into supremacy by virtue of having two oceans on either side, its main rivals destroyed themselves and left it to ascend to power by default, and most of its advantages are a result of its patrimony from English jurisprudence and customs, not really anything it developed on its own. And it looks like it is most likely going to lose its dominant position after one of the shortest golden ages of any empire (1945-1971.) Not nearly as impressive as, say, the British Empire which ruled for centuries and on which the sun never set.

[The USOT]

I think its become a bit of an NSG joke based off you being perhaps one of the most ardent monarchist supporters, and North Korea`s strange monarchist society. Because your eccentric and NK is eccentric, somehow the two become linked =p

I seem to recall the same joke made in another thread actually...

That is strange. I'm not a monarchist, though.

Your sig says otherwise =p

[Distruzio]

That is strange. I'm not a monarchist, though.

Your sig says otherwise =p

It says I'm an anarcho-monarchist. Anarchist comes first.

[The USOT]

Your sig says otherwise =p

It says I'm an anarcho-monarchist. Anarchist comes first.

Perhaps, but if you put that in your sig, people presume that you are that thing.

E.g. if I put "Anarcho-capitalist" then people would presume I was a capitalist.

[The UK in Exile]

"constitucional monarchies are lees corruptible than reoublics" an argument used very often here in Spain, well, until the kings daughter and his husband were implicated in an ENORMOUS corruption case.

And, (this is not exactly corruption but its a scandal) while Spain is hit by a 25% unemployment rate and poverty spreads along the country, the king, instead of givin an image of austeruty goes to Ruanda to hunt elephants, which is ironic its that he was one of the delegates of the WWF, and he was fired hahahahahahahaha!

i think monarchies CREATE corruption, not stop it.

and you'd be right.

[Distruzio]

It says I'm an anarcho-monarchist. Anarchist comes first.

Perhaps, but if you put that in your sig, people presume that you are that thing.

E.g. if I put "Anarcho-capitalist" then people would presume I was a capitalist.

And they'd be wrong.

E.g. Stalin claimed to be a State Communist but wasn't... was he?

[The USOT]

Perhaps, but if you put that in your sig, people presume that you are that thing.

E.g. if I put "Anarcho-capitalist" then people would presume I was a capitalist.

And they'd be wrong.

E.g. Stalin claimed to be a State Communist but wasn't... was he?

True but that is on further examination. If someone proclaims that they are something, you presume untill proven otherwise that they are.
But on an internet forum where words are our only means of interaction, if the words you put claim you as something, thats all we have to go on...

[Distruzio]

And they'd be wrong.

E.g. Stalin claimed to be a State Communist but wasn't... was he?

True but that is on further examination. If someone proclaims that they are something, you presume untill proven otherwise that they are.
But on an internet forum where words are our only means of interaction, if the words you put claim you as something, thats all we have to go on...

Then I am obviously not a monarchist but, rather, an anarchist. I simply prefer monarchy to democracy and am prepared to explain why.

[The Murry]

It depends on the system.
In Australia our Current constitutional monarchy is the best system because it provides us with stability, safty from dictatorship and someone who looks better than Juliar Gillard to put on the back of our coins. To this point no republican movement has put forward a proposal that would make our democracy more secure.

[Albion Rhodesia]

Though constitutional monarchies are better at providing their citizenry with of sense of history and tradition, often times constitutional monarchies tend to be more restrictive, especially when it comes to the issue of free speech, which is often considered a sacred right in republics and also often times enshrined in their constitution.

[Khytenna]

It depends on the system.
In Australia our Current constitutional monarchy is the best system because it provides us with stability, safty from dictatorship and someone who looks better than Juliar Gillard to put on the back of our coins. To this point no republican movement has put forward a proposal that would make our democracy more secure.

this is why i love the Australian constitution

[Emile Zola]

It depends on the system.
In Australia our Current constitutional monarchy is the best system because it provides us with stability, safty from dictatorship and someone who looks better than Juliar Gillard to put on the back of our coins. To this point no republican movement has put forward a proposal that would make our democracy more secure.

this is why i love the Australian constitution

Except it doesn't do any of that. The Constitution doesn't even represent how our government works. The government runs on a set of conventions that are unwritten and if one particular group ignores those conventions it can lead to crisis. The one time The Governor-General intervened it was a disaster only solved by an election. Since then the monarchy and it's representatives wouldn't dare to fart without the approval of parliament. It's a sham so much so that the ACT, one of the territories has no vice regal post and all those powers are handled by either the Legislative Assembly or by the Chief Minister. To me that would be the best system for a republic.

[Densaner]

Monarchy is a stupid and archaic system. Bowing and scraping to an individual who claims to be the "direct descendant of God" or "God's representative on Earth." Like slavery and flat earth belief Monarchy will eventually bite the dust. As someone from the UK I wish all other countries who have Elizabeth II as their head of state would pull their collective fingers out and become Republics!

Why not become part of a British state that is a republic?

What part would that be? The whole of the UK and all it's foreign territories are governed as a constitutional monarchy.

[Martean]

Though constitutional monarchies are better at providing their citizenry with of sense of history and tradition, often times constitutional monarchies tend to be more restrictive, especially when it comes to the issue of free speech, which is often considered a sacred right in republics and also often times enshrined in their constitution.

In spain whe arent very proud of our history (especially from 1936-1975 and from 2008-?)

[Luw]

Monarchy if I'm the Monarch; Republic if I'm not.

[Seleucas]

Monarchy if I'm the Monarch; Republic if I'm not.

Monarchy whether or not I am the monarch.

[Distruzio]

Monarchy if I'm the Monarch; Republic if I'm not.

Monarchy whether or not I am the monarch.

Same here.

[Chinese Regions]

Why not become part of a British state that is a republic?

What part would that be? The whole of the UK and all it's foreign territories are governed as a constitutional monarchy.

The whole of the UK and it's foreign territories governed as a republic, no independence.

[Chinese Regions]

Monarchy whether or not I am the monarch.

Same here.

North Korean citizen: Sorry I am not allowed to have an opinion (in Korean).

[The Nuclear Fist]

As a person who has experienced the sting of Absolutism's cudgel, I'd much prefer to live in a democratic republic.

So 'republic, so long as it is democratic'.

[Chinese Regions]

Monarchy sucks ass