NationStates

NeuPolska wrote:I’ll do what I did to introduce myself on the RWDT and throw out my ideas

-Monarchy above all else
-I chose “semi-constitutional”
-Monarch must retain at the very least the same level of executive power as the US President if not more
-Monarchy should be hereditary
-Parliament is a good idea so long as it is legislative and does not compete for power
-Voting should be restricted by IQ or landowning status

Why should monarchy be hereditary?

Salus Maior wrote:

Auze wrote:Reminder that a functional democracy has never experienced famine.

Yes, that's why no one has ever starved in India.

Oh, wait.

Remember, India is growing FAST. By ~2030, malnourishment won’t be a problem (at least nowhere near how bad it is rn) Remember, almost all democratic nations that were liberated from dictatorships went through a half-century long period of poverty and the situation India is in right now. India is the 4th fastest growing economy (That’s more than China) and the only one in the top 10 which currently exceeds 1 trillion USD.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

NeuPolska wrote:I’ll do what I did to introduce myself on the RWDT and throw out my ideas

-Monarchy above all else
-I chose “semi-constitutional”
-Monarch must retain at the very least the same level of executive power as the US President if not more
-Monarchy should be hereditary
-Parliament is a good idea so long as it is legislative and does not compete for power
-Voting should be restricted by IQ or landowning status

Why should monarchy be hereditary?

Because that's far more stable than electoral monarchies.

Aureumterra wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Yes, that's why no one has ever starved in India.

Oh, wait.

Remember, India is growing FAST. By ~2030, malnourishment won’t be a problem (at least nowhere near how bad it is rn) Remember, almost all democratic nations that were liberated from dictatorships went through a half-century long period of poverty and the situation India is in right now. India is the 4th fastest growing economy (That’s more than China) and the only one in the top 10 which currently exceeds 1 trillion USD.

My point is that the issue of famines isn't really something that's related to governmental system.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

United States of Oceania wrote:
So he was also a slave. Every Muslim is a slave of Allah. I'm a slave too and I'm proud of it. Jesus was proud to be a slave of Allah.

And you wonder why people don't like Islam.

We're all slaves to something.

Salus Maior wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Remember, India is growing FAST. By ~2030, malnourishment won’t be a problem (at least nowhere near how bad it is rn) Remember, almost all democratic nations that were liberated from dictatorships went through a half-century long period of poverty and the situation India is in right now. India is the 4th fastest growing economy (That’s more than China) and the only one in the top 10 which currently exceeds 1 trillion USD.

My point is that the issue of famines isn’t really something that's related to governmental system.

Well, look at some of the nations most suffering from malnourishment:
DPRK
Swaziland
Eritrea
Haiti
Comoros
DRC
Burundi

See a trend? Either they’re in civil war, or have an absolute dictator

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

NeuPolska wrote:I’ll do what I did to introduce myself on the RWDT and throw out my ideas

-Monarchy above all else
-I chose “semi-constitutional”
-Monarch must retain at the very least the same level of executive power as the US President if not more
-Monarchy should be hereditary
-Parliament is a good idea so long as it is legislative and does not compete for power
-Voting should be restricted by IQ or landowning status

Why should monarchy be hereditary?

Because that's what a monarchy is?

Aureumterra wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
My point is that the issue of famines isn’t really something that's related to governmental system.

Well, look at some of the nations most suffering from malnourishment:
DPRK
Swaziland
Eritrea
Haiti
Comoros
DRC
Burundi

See a trend? Either they’re in civil war, or have an absolute dictator

Correlation is not causation.

Salus Maior wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Well, look at some of the nations most suffering from malnourishment:
DPRK
Swaziland
Eritrea
Haiti
Comoros
DRC
Burundi

See a trend? Either they’re in civil war, or have an absolute dictator

Correlation is not causation.

Really? Wasn’t it King Mswate who increased farming taxes over the top, which caused many farmers to not be able to plant, resulting in lack of food?

I would argue that is more a corruption vs. integrity thing than a monarchy vs. democracy thing.

Camelone wrote:I would argue that is more a corruption vs. integrity thing than a monarchy vs. democracy thing.

Of course there are benevolent dictators, but in a democracy, it is almost impossible for the leader to make corrupt decisions, since the public protests and uprisings, along with voting laws, would make it a much safer bet

Aureumterra wrote:

Camelone wrote:I would argue that is more a corruption vs. integrity thing than a monarchy vs. democracy thing.

Of course there are benevolent dictators, but in a democracy, it is almost impossible for the leader to make corrupt decisions, since the public protests and uprisings, along with voting laws, would make it a much safer bet

You're clearly not familiar with the U.S.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Why should monarchy be hereditary?

Because that's far more stable than electoral monarchies.

"Stability." The calling card of the totalitarian.

... I think you are combining dictatorship with monarchies. A dictatorship is a strongman ruling through force of will and presence while a monarchy tends to rule from the position of tradition while it may not seem like much the monarch has an unspoken agreement with his subjects based on the conduct of their ancestors towards them while a dictator rules because they had better people to shoot guns. They can overlap certainly but it depends on the culture and history of a nation. As for democracies not being corrupt I think you need to research the criminal underworld some more as well as the nitty gritty of political history you'll find it that it's not as glorious as you were led to believe more along the lines of thuggery and bribes. Even nowadays democracy brings up a lot of problems like not being able to go against the public will even if it is for the best of the country, there is no long term planning for a nation the politician loots the public treasury and utilizes state power to make themselves look good so to garner more votes leading to exponential growth in the governments size.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Because that's far more stable than electoral monarchies.

"Stability." The calling card of the totalitarian.

You are a minarchist why are you in support of democracies and republics? They have a tendency for government growth once the people find out they can vote themselves goodies from the public treasuries.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:And you wonder why people don't like Islam.

We're all slaves to something.

Oh. Oh. Well then, I guess slavery is okay. I used to think freedom and self-determination were good, but then you told me a meaningless platitude.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Camelone wrote:... I think you are combining dictatorship with monarchies. A dictatorship is a strongman ruling through force of will and presence while a monarchy tends to rule from the position of tradition while it may not seem like much the monarch has an unspoken agreement with his subjects based on the conduct of their ancestors towards them while a dictator rules because they had better people to shoot guns. They can overlap certainly but it depends on the culture and history of a nation. As for democracies not being corrupt I think you need to research the criminal underworld some more as well as the nitty gritty of political history you'll find it that it's not as glorious as you were led to believe more along the lines of thuggery and bribes. Even nowadays democracy brings up a lot of problems like not being able to go against the public will even if it is for the best of the country, there is no long term planning for a nation the politician loots the public treasury and utilizes state power to make themselves look good so to garner more votes leading to exponential growth in the governments size.

Rome was a Monarchy. I think adoptive heirs are acceptable.

If it works for the succession laws in place I am all for it. I am more in favor of a modified tanistry succession method myself which could lend itself to your idea.

Knuth Federation wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Why should monarchy be hereditary?

Because that's what a monarchy is?

Why have hereditary rule then?

In the Celtic tradition tanistry is where the next monarch is chosen from the reigning monarchs clan, family if you want to be more modern, adoption counts as well. Traditionally it is done by the vassals of the monarch but you can tweak it to be chosen from whatever segment of the population you desire. As for that I am generally in favor of a more corporatist selection method and not a general election so it doesn't turn out to be like the pitfalls I see in democracy which is just the continual growth of government.

Camelone wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:"Stability." The calling card of the totalitarian.

You are a minarchist why are you in support of democracies and republics? They have a tendency for government growth once the people find out they can vote themselves goodies from the public treasuries.

You are a minarchist why are you in support of Monarchies? They have a (100%) tendency for not caring supporting the concepts of liberty, civil rights or free speech at all. But you're not a minarchist though, are you? So why do you support the free market? Supporting a free market, but not free people is hypocritical.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

NeuPolska wrote:I’ll do what I did to introduce myself on the RWDT and throw out my ideas

-Monarchy above all else
-I chose “semi-constitutional”
-Monarch must retain at the very least the same level of executive power as the US President if not more
-Monarchy should be hereditary
-Parliament is a good idea so long as it is legislative and does not compete for power
-Voting should be restricted by IQ or landowning status

That's a horrible, tyrannical, oppressive idea, it's downright cruel and worthy of being ridiculed.

The IQ part is alright

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:You are a minarchist why are you in support of democracies and republics? They have a tendency for government growth once the people find out they can vote themselves goodies from the public treasuries.

You are a minarchist why are you in support of Monarchies? They have a (100%) tendency for not caring supporting the concepts of liberty, civil rights or free speech at all. But you're not a minarchist though, are you? So why do you support the free market? Supporting a free market, but not free people is hypocritical.[/quote]
I believe democracies are a scam that perpetually weaponizes the citizenry against each other all the time driving wedges between everyone, there is no freedom unless the state supports you, if you wish you can substitute the state for the community. I have minarchist sympathies, I generally support free markets coupled with the common law because of their efficiency not because of some higher ideal of freedom jut because it is more logical and easier on a state if they don't try policing everything the citizenry does. It is better to inspire the citizenry through a civic religion, perhaps religion as well, than to control them through laws. All that is needed for a functioning state is respect for the rule of law, a love for the homeland and your neighbors, and logical laws nothing more and nothing less so I prefer restricted monarchies for the traditionalism and unifying spirit.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Irou wrote:The IQ part is alright

That is horrifying.
That is 1984 right there. Something the Nazis would literally have been in favor of, or the old Romans. That is disgusting, and downright hellish.

A society that values intelligence and knowledge isn't hellish

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Irou wrote:The IQ part is alright

That is horrifying.
That is 1984 right there. Something the Nazis would literally have been in favor of, or the old Romans. That is disgusting, and downright hellish.

I’d be in favor of it if it accurately measured intelligence, knowledge, and experience.

Why not a corporatist system where people only vote in areas they have experience and expertise in?