A monarchy? The last thing we need is to be ruled by butterflies.
A monarchy? The last thing we need is to be ruled by butterflies.
atica wrote:
By the way, you do know the current british monarchy is French right? Had you paid attention in high school European history, you would have known after the death of Harold II of England, the British monarchy was passed over to the French monarchy lineage after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.
Go back up a few posts. You missed the part where I wrote this:
Where did William I come from? Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of words in English which have French origins?
The fallacy of this argument lies in one crucial point. To quote William Barclay, "money is like sea water, the more you drink the thirstier you become."NO ONE, absolutely one one, would ever deny the opportunity to make more money.I remember the public uproar when the Queen requested a hike in stipend(don't remember the exact amount, but I think it was 14 million). So you were saying that a monarch doesn't have vested financial interest in the government. I think not.Monarchy is just an euphemism for dictatorship, except that the dictatorship has been in place in so long, passed from generation to generation, that is has been "legitimized" in the public mind.Case point, just look at the so called "monarchies" in middle east. If there is a monarchy that the Western powers decided to remove, they'll call it dictatorship(Iraq, Libya,...). If there is a monarchy they like, governments and news media alike would call it "monarchy". When was the last time Saudi Arabia was called a dictatorship?Monarchy is just a useless, antiquated system. In the case of britains, it serves as a theater on top of the inefficiency, multi-parties political system.It serves absolutely no purpose other than preserving the "tradition".
Good question wrote:
Seriously, I'd say the answer to that question is yes.
One of my Political Science professors made a very persuasive argument in favor of having a monarchy within a democratic society. In Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth plays a key role in mediating disagreements and conflicts between political parties. Unlike the elected leaders, she is able to act in the best interest of the entire country, not a political agenda. She doesn't have to pander to special interests because she doesn't need more power or more money, and she doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.
Contrast that with what's happening in the U.S. today - few to none of our Congressmen and women care about anything except climbing the Republican or Democrat power ladder or pandering to lobbyists who fund their re-election campaigns. Everyone's looking out for number one.
I look forward to hearing other arguments on this one!
TSA scanner wrote:
But this is America, and our country was founded on the fight against monarchy. Also, descendants of the Founding Fathers are proud people who take pride in their heritage and becoming a monarch would go against that.
So no Monarchs.
Uh, no, the Revolution wasn't a fight against monarchy, and if George Washington had been interested in the job which was offered to him, then we'd have become a monarchy, simple as that.
Bulldog wrote:
Your professor is acting foolish or playing devil's advocate. A monarchy is unelected and therefore can never be said to have the best interest of the country at heart. The "political agenda" you speak of is what the elected official feels is the mandate from the people. A queen cannot be removed if her thoughts and actions are not in line with the will of the people.
Good question wrote:Seriously, I'd say the answer to that question is yes.
One of my Political Science professors made a very persuasive argument in favor of having a monarchy within a democratic society. In Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth plays a key role in mediating disagreements and conflicts between political parties. Unlike the elected leaders, she is able to act in the best interest of the entire country, not a political agenda. She doesn't have to pander to special interests because she doesn't need more power or more money, and she doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.
Contrast that with what's happening in the U.S. today - few to none of our Congressmen and women care about anything except climbing the Republican or Democrat power ladder or pandering to lobbyists who fund their re-election campaigns. Everyone's looking out for number one.
I look forward to hearing other arguments on this one!
His professor may very well have been serious. Just because a monarch is unelected, it doesn't mean they don't have the country's interests at heart. It would be in the monarch's best interest to not let the country go to waste or be dissatisfied, and he/she would be accountable for everything. Certainly, the monarch would not let the country be overrun by outside forces. Being a monarch isn't all about being powerful and having lots of money, as you may have come to believe in 5th grade. There really are advantages to a monarchy.
That said, I think it would be best if we simply had a good president in office, as a monarch isn't as in touch with local concerns as a government with representatives is.
His professor may very well have been serious. Just because a monarch is unelected, it doesn't mean they don't have the country's interests at heart. It would be in the monarch's best interest to not let the country go to waste or be dissatisfied, and he/she would be accountable for everything. Certainly, the monarch would not let the country be overrun by outside forces. Being a monarch isn't all about being powerful and having lots of money, as you may have come to believe in 5th grade. There really are advantages to a monarchy.
Terrible reasoning.
So you are asserting that "it would be in the monarch's best interest to not let the country go to waste or be dissatisfied, and he/she would be accountable for everything."
The easiest way to refute a clause is to simply offer a counter argument. In British history of ignoble kings and queens, I can offer at least 5 in details:
Charles I. This guy got into a power struggle with the parliament in trying to revert the country back to absolute monarchy. The fight was so vicious to the point that he was finally overthrown in the Glorious Revolution.
Edward II. This guy was known as the most incompetent king ever to hold the throne, which led to Scotland being freed from English control. Countless raids by Scots took place afterwards in Northern England, causing much damages and civilian deaths. His sexual deviancy led to his death on the order by his wife.
Stephen( there was only one). This wonderful king stole the throne from the rightful heir. Went on to fight a bitter, protracted civil war for 19, yes 19, years known as the War of Anarchy.
John (ditto as Stephen). Perpetual war monger. Fought numerous wars on the Continental Europe, causing much civil strife, to the point that the people finally said enough which led the the signing of Magna Carta, transferring the power from monarchy to the hands of people.
Mary I. Nicknamed Bloody Mary, need I say more?
I can go on and on....
So what was it that you were saying "it would be in the monarch's best interest to not let the country go to waste or be dissatisfied, and he/she would be accountable for everything."?
michaelmatthews wrote:
What do you think?
3.5/10. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to call you out, but you did get a fair number of responses.
America already has a monarchy determined on the basis of the entertainment value of its constituent members, and not on heredity (usually). And we only have room for one monarchy over here.
I wasn't defending monarchy. I was simply stating that there are people, even those in academia, who support monarchy. The examples you mentioned, of course, have to do with people who may have been bad rulers, but that does not mean it wasn't in their best interest to try to do the best for the country as a whole. They probably thought they were. Of course, if you don't get it right the first time, then you have to wait till that monarch dies, so it doesn't really help the case of monarchy. However, there are inherent defects to democracy, as well as any other form of government, that make it seem like a better choice. I, personally, am satisfied more with this form of government, but the consequences of its imperfections are starting to add up and be felt by the people. All I was saying was that, if there is a good monarch in place, then it helps for them to gain the approval of the people to allow national matters to go more smoothly. This isn't saying that there aren't bad monarchs, just there can be bad presidents who are warmongers, incompetent, power hoarder, etc.
We have a monarchy- it's big business. Then, there's this guy that we think we elected following their orders.
Seriously, what's the simple solution to our problems?
Get rid of Bush's tax cuts- problem sloved.
But, then big business couldn't buy as many yachts and mansions and outragiously priced shoes from foreign countries.
Every Republican with an education knows that, but big business won't allow them to act for themselves.
Capitalism got you down, huh?
runn wrote:
We have a monarchy- it's big business. Then, there's this guy that we think we elected following their orders.
Seriously, what's the simple solution to our problems?
Get rid of Bush's tax cuts- problem sloved.
But, then big business couldn't buy as many yachts and mansions and outragiously priced shoes from foreign countries.
Every Republican with an education knows that, but big business won't allow them to act for themselves.
Yes, I am losing my faith in humanity. I am all set- no economic or job issues. I have compassion. I don't want to see people suffer and I hate it when I see clips of FOX news and think that people believe that crap.
I love this country and anyone who cares knows the simple answer to our problems.
Personally, I think the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans could go back to the 1950's levels (60+). But, I'll settle for the 3-4% increase that Obama wants.
Registered Republicans have to get on the ball and get this going.
If Jeb Bush (FL Gov) jumps in, and manages, to win the Presidency in 2012 (unlikely) or 2016/2020, then that makes three Bush's running the country in a period of less than 30 years. That's a monarchy if ever there was one in the U.S.
runn wrote:
I love this country and anyone who cares knows the simple answer to our problems.
What would that be?
would-be-investor wrote:
We already have a dictatorship. The government is the dictator.
I too am all for a system in which words have no meaning.
The US can have a monarchy any time it wants. Just surrender to Canada.
Way to let your jealousy and emotions make you sound like an idiot. Of course, anonymous usernames on this forum allow any coward to prove what an idiot they are then back into their pathetic lives without anyone knowing.
Bush Dynasty wrote:
If Jeb Bush (FL Gov) jumps in, and manages, to win the Presidency in 2012 (unlikely) or 2016/2020, then that makes three Bush's running the country in a period of less than 30 years. That's a monarchy if ever there was one in the U.S.
My Presidential Campaign
As supreme commander, these are the things I will enforce.
In this order:
1. Senate and HoR will be disbanded. At this point, it is a failed system thanks to corporate influence and personal agendas.
2. Citizens will vote on national issues each year with their tax return.
3. All American troops will be brought home within 90 days. All bases established by the U.S. overseas will either be sold to their host nation or destroyed.
4. Withdrawal from the UN.
5. All health insurance will be private, with no government interference. There will be no medicare. Medicaid will provided for those who are of age and have paid into it, those not of age will be reimbursed through tax reductions or refunds if retired.
6. Abortion will be legal. Although no government assistance will be made available of course. Partial birth abortions will not be tolerated.
7. Marijuana will be enforced with the exact same laws/taxation as alcohol. Although .08 will be brought down to .00 for alcohol in public/driving. The same level of intoxication will be enforced for Marijuana.
8. Income tax will be the same percent for every American citizen.
9. An advisory panel will be created by subject matter experts and citizens for major areas and will replace the existing committees made up of politicians.
10. Border control will be increased to maximum coverage and efforts, but legal immigration/citizenship will also be streamlined and improved for cleared individuals.
Please advise/discuss.
yeah, we need mixed mutt half breed anglo-hunnic-german-mongoloid bastards like the homo english have. they also leave dog shit everywhere so take your old flats to london when you go there to run.
If we were to lose our technological advances (Cars, oil, computers, medications, etc...) we would slowly become a monarchy or dictatorship of some kind. Except instead of having one big monarch - it would be regionalized due to the size of the country and the lack of horses (transportation) to administer the entire nation effectively.
2012.