| 36 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
zchmrkenhoff
 Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/20/10 10:33:09 AM#21
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Still, the details of these "checks'" would need to be explained.. monarchy is different than what you see as "government" in my point of view. A monarch is the leader of a people, intended to be the strongest, wisest, and most symbollic of the people he/she leads. I suppose when you reach the point that we are at when we no longer have any concern for the world but personal happiness, the concern of national identity and need for firm leadership disappears, and republics come into play...
Monarchy = Henry the VIII Doesn't work indefinitely. Works fine if you have a great Monarch. Falls apart when you don't. The Monarch refuses to abdicate, then you have to have a coup, which is usually bloody and chaos ensues. Then the emerging leader after that may be just as bad as the Monarch that was deposed. Monarchy lacks stability. By the time we get the "checks and balances" you are after in place so that there is stability, it's no longer a monarchy, but some form of democracy. Saudi Arabia is an example of Monarchy. If you think that's a good system, there's your example. I am not interested in discussing Constitutional Monarchies like England of today. That, IMO, is pointless. The monarchy in that example is little more than a figurehead. I'm discussing the ability to levy taxes, go to war, change the criminal laws of the country, make treaties with other nations, things that actually make a difference to the citizens of a nation, not raising money for a charity. If the Queen of England can send troops ot Afghanistan, then she's relevant. Otherwise, not so much. I do note that no one seems to be advocating for Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Where are all the Sharia Law supporters that think theres' no difference in the Taliban and the EU, it's just a difference in "culture".
You're ignoring the existence of an elective monarchy. I know it's hard for people to accept that a monarchy can work, but you need to acknowledge the existence of an elective monarchy... this would work. "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff Still, the details of these "checks'" would need to be explained.. monarchy is different than what you see as "government" in my point of view. A monarch is the leader of a people, intended to be the strongest, wisest, and most symbollic of the people he/she leads. I suppose when you reach the point that we are at when we no longer have any concern for the world but personal happiness, the concern of national identity and need for firm leadership disappears, and republics come into play...
Monarchy = Henry the VIII Doesn't work indefinitely. Works fine if you have a great Monarch. Falls apart when you don't. The Monarch refuses to abdicate, then you have to have a coup, which is usually bloody and chaos ensues. Then the emerging leader after that may be just as bad as the Monarch that was deposed. Monarchy lacks stability. By the time we get the "checks and balances" you are after in place so that there is stability, it's no longer a monarchy, but some form of democracy. Saudi Arabia is an example of Monarchy. If you think that's a good system, there's your example. I am not interested in discussing Constitutional Monarchies like England of today. That, IMO, is pointless. The monarchy in that example is little more than a figurehead. I'm discussing the ability to levy taxes, go to war, change the criminal laws of the country, make treaties with other nations, things that actually make a difference to the citizens of a nation, not raising money for a charity. If the Queen of England can send troops ot Afghanistan, then she's relevant. Otherwise, not so much. I do note that no one seems to be advocating for Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Where are all the Sharia Law supporters that think theres' no difference in the Taliban and the EU, it's just a difference in "culture".
You're ignoring the existence of an elective monarchy. I know it's hard for people to accept that a monarchy can work, but you need to acknowledge the existence of an elective monarchy... this would work.
That would be a democracy. You're just increasing the term of the elected official.
|
|
|
zchmrkenhoff
Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/20/10 3:30:50 PM#23
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Monarchy = Henry the VIII Doesn't work indefinitely. Works fine if you have a great Monarch. Falls apart when you don't. The Monarch refuses to abdicate, then you have to have a coup, which is usually bloody and chaos ensues. Then the emerging leader after that may be just as bad as the Monarch that was deposed. Monarchy lacks stability. By the time we get the "checks and balances" you are after in place so that there is stability, it's no longer a monarchy, but some form of democracy. Saudi Arabia is an example of Monarchy. If you think that's a good system, there's your example. I am not interested in discussing Constitutional Monarchies like England of today. That, IMO, is pointless. The monarchy in that example is little more than a figurehead. I'm discussing the ability to levy taxes, go to war, change the criminal laws of the country, make treaties with other nations, things that actually make a difference to the citizens of a nation, not raising money for a charity. If the Queen of England can send troops ot Afghanistan, then she's relevant. Otherwise, not so much. I do note that no one seems to be advocating for Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Where are all the Sharia Law supporters that think theres' no difference in the Taliban and the EU, it's just a difference in "culture".
You're ignoring the existence of an elective monarchy. I know it's hard for people to accept that a monarchy can work, but you need to acknowledge the existence of an elective monarchy... this would work.
That would be a democracy. You're just increasing the term of the elected official.
No, it isn't. A elective monarchy is where those of the ruling class select the one among them who is "kingworthy". The people have no say, as it should be. "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
|
1/20/10 3:40:02 PM#24
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
Monarchy = Henry the VIII Doesn't work indefinitely. Works fine if you have a great Monarch. Falls apart when you don't. The Monarch refuses to abdicate, then you have to have a coup, which is usually bloody and chaos ensues. Then the emerging leader after that may be just as bad as the Monarch that was deposed. Monarchy lacks stability. By the time we get the "checks and balances" you are after in place so that there is stability, it's no longer a monarchy, but some form of democracy. Saudi Arabia is an example of Monarchy. If you think that's a good system, there's your example. I am not interested in discussing Constitutional Monarchies like England of today. That, IMO, is pointless. The monarchy in that example is little more than a figurehead. I'm discussing the ability to levy taxes, go to war, change the criminal laws of the country, make treaties with other nations, things that actually make a difference to the citizens of a nation, not raising money for a charity. If the Queen of England can send troops ot Afghanistan, then she's relevant. Otherwise, not so much. I do note that no one seems to be advocating for Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Where are all the Sharia Law supporters that think theres' no difference in the Taliban and the EU, it's just a difference in "culture".
You're ignoring the existence of an elective monarchy. I know it's hard for people to accept that a monarchy can work, but you need to acknowledge the existence of an elective monarchy... this would work.
That would be a democracy. You're just increasing the term of the elected official.
No, it isn't. A elective monarchy is where those of the ruling class select the one among them who is "kingworthy". The people have no say, as it should be. Its funny how you continue to contradict yourself. First you want a leader who has the support of the people, now you want a system where the support of the people is irrelevant. Make up your mind. |
|
|
zchmrkenhoff
Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/20/10 7:03:34 PM#25
Originally posted by Gameloading
You're ignoring the existence of an elective monarchy. I know it's hard for people to accept that a monarchy can work, but you need to acknowledge the existence of an elective monarchy... this would work.
That would be a democracy. You're just increasing the term of the elected official.
No, it isn't. A elective monarchy is where those of the ruling class select the one among them who is "kingworthy". The people have no say, as it should be. Its funny how you continue to contradict yourself. First you want a leader who has the support of the people, now you want a system where the support of the people is irrelevant. Make up your mind. It would be nice if a ruler had the support of the people. It isn't required, it's just a nice afterthought. "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
|
1/20/10 7:31:40 PM#26
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Point of clarification, Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia And I voted yes, the Republic with a constitution that limits the powers of government is the best form. However the Constitution is the key thing here, many countries are democracies but with Constitutions that have different levels of limitations. Do you support Liberty, Freedom and wish to Uphold the Constitution? Join the movement - http://CampaignForLiberty.com |
|
|
1/20/10 10:49:09 PM#27
Originally posted by smokemonsc Point of clarification, Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia And I voted yes, the Republic with a constitution that limits the powers of government is the best form. However the Constitution is the key thing here, many countries are democracies but with Constitutions that have different levels of limitations.
Yup. Absolute democracy is as dangerous as absolute monarchy -- moreso, because you can actually have a decent monarch -- the mob is always going to be bad news. It is constitutionalism that is the key. Limit the power of the monkeys, and it doesn't matter as much what kinds of monkeys you have. Constitutional Monarchy, constitutional republic, constitutional super computer, constitutional dog with a chip in his brain -- it's the constitution that matters. |
|
|
Bigdavo
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/21/06
''Life is what you make of it, not what others make of yours.'' |
1/21/10 1:04:34 AM#28
Monarchy is a failed form of government which is why it barely exists anymore. You can come up with a dozen good examples of monarchs but the truth of the matter is that when compared to democracy it is far more prone to abuse and instability. A 'ruling' class is ultimately something humans will hopefully be rid of some day and we've made great progress these last few centuries so why reverse that? However it still exists to some extent in western society, or one could argue never left just simply changed. Like someone said before, democracy is the current best form and I think a better form can only be achieved through advances in technology. O_o o_O |
Originally posted by smokemonsc Point of clarification, Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia And I voted yes, the Republic with a constitution that limits the powers of government is the best form. However the Constitution is the key thing here, many countries are democracies but with Constitutions that have different levels of limitations.
I stand corrected. I would also clarify that's it's a VERY young Democracy: "The 2004 presidential election was the first in which the people directly elected the president and vice president." Jakarta is on the top of my list of places to visit.
|
|
|
zchmrkenhoff
Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/21/10 9:34:31 PM#30
Originally posted by Bigdavo Democracy is showing its flaws and errors... when you have such a large population of people, where they have actual power in things, and many of them are apathetic to politics, only a certain group's word is being carried... if you claim that it is the fault of those apathetic people that they are in the situation they are in, perhaps it is rather the fault of democracy as a whole? Democracy is like communism to me... it's something good on paper but fails.
I suppose when your nation is as far developed as our Western Nations, a Constitution becomes a bit necessary, though it shouldn't be to the extent that the UK limits the monarch's powers. A parliament is just supposed to serve as an advisory council to the ruler, it's not supposed to be in charge... and if the monarch is elected in the way The Pope or Holy Roman emperors are elected, you have a brilliant system. Limited loosely by a Constitution (compared to the tight constitution restricting the UK monarch, or at least I believe?) , and given advice by an effective parliament, you have a good system of government. No "balances", yet a few checks, I suppose >> "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
|
1/21/10 10:27:15 PM#31
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff Democracy is showing its flaws and errors... when you have such a large population of people, where they have actual power in things, and many of them are apathetic to politics, only a certain group's word is being carried... if you claim that it is the fault of those apathetic people that they are in the situation they are in, perhaps it is rather the fault of democracy as a whole? Democracy is like communism to me... it's something good on paper but fails.
I suppose when your nation is as far developed as our Western Nations, a Constitution becomes a bit necessary, though it shouldn't be to the extent that the UK limits the monarch's powers. A parliament is just supposed to serve as an advisory council to the ruler, it's not supposed to be in charge... and if the monarch is elected in the way The Pope or Holy Roman emperors are elected, you have a brilliant system. Limited loosely by a Constitution (compared to the tight constitution restricting the UK monarch, or at least I believe?) , and given advice by an effective parliament, you have a good system of government. No "balances", yet a few checks, I suppose >> Actually, that is a terrible system. If the elite get to pick, they will vote in favor of the elite. What would be their motivation to vote for the common people? Nothing. It's quite funny how bad you want to go back to the dark ages. |
|
|
zchmrkenhoff
Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/21/10 11:28:27 PM#32
Originally posted by Gameloading Actually, that is a terrible system. If the elite get to pick, they will vote in favor of the elite. What would be their motivation to vote for the common people? Nothing. It's quite funny how bad you want to go back to the dark ages. I think it's funny that you call them "the dark ages" :P "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
|
Bigdavo
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/21/06
''Life is what you make of it, not what others make of yours.'' |
1/22/10 3:05:45 AM#33
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff Actually, that is a terrible system. If the elite get to pick, they will vote in favor of the elite. What would be their motivation to vote for the common people? Nothing. It's quite funny how bad you want to go back to the dark ages. I think it's funny that you call them "the dark ages" :P
Well the dark ages were horifically brutal and keep in mind it was systems like tha papacy that allowed popes to introduce things such as the Inquisition. Elite empowering the elite and the commoner having no say, I'm glad we have left such times. I can see where you're coming from but you're relying on good will and the hope of a benevolent leader, unfortunately 'hoping for the best' doesn't cut it. O_o o_O |
|
1/22/10 3:53:27 AM#34
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff Actually, that is a terrible system. If the elite get to pick, they will vote in favor of the elite. What would be their motivation to vote for the common people? Nothing. It's quite funny how bad you want to go back to the dark ages. I think it's funny that you call them "the dark ages" :P What is so funny about it? They are widely known as the dark ages in western europe. |
|
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff Democracy is showing its flaws and errors... when you have such a large population of people, where they have actual power in things, and many of them are apathetic to politics, only a certain group's word is being carried... if you claim that it is the fault of those apathetic people that they are in the situation they are in, perhaps it is rather the fault of democracy as a whole? Democracy is like communism to me... it's something good on paper but fails.
I suppose when your nation is as far developed as our Western Nations, a Constitution becomes a bit necessary, though it shouldn't be to the extent that the UK limits the monarch's powers. A parliament is just supposed to serve as an advisory council to the ruler, it's not supposed to be in charge... and if the monarch is elected in the way The Pope or Holy Roman emperors are elected, you have a brilliant system. Limited loosely by a Constitution (compared to the tight constitution restricting the UK monarch, or at least I believe?) , and given advice by an effective parliament, you have a good system of government. No "balances", yet a few checks, I suppose >>
I come to the opposite conclusion. When you have a real functioning Democracy with a Constitution nad rights for minorities, the LESS participation in that Democracy, the MORE successful it is. It's like you're sitting at the dinner table, and the waiter says, well, you can have Cherry Pie or Apple pie. BUT, we're just going to decide for you, UNLESS you get up from the dinner table and walk across the room and write which pie you want on a piece of paper. I like both. I might be content to just sit right there and see what they bring me. Either way, I'm getting some pretty good pie. Why should I get up from the table? This means, hey, the menu ain't so bad. But what if the choice is between Apple Pie, and Turd Pie? In that case, pretty much everyone is going to get up nad walk across the room nad write Apple Pie on a piece of paper so they don't get Turd Pie. The people complaining about "the electorate" are the ones that have a very strong preference, and can't believe everyone doesn't think like they do. I want Cherry Pie. How could ANYONE sit there and get served Apple Pie! Apple Pie sucks! Are they stupid, lazy, ignorant! Don't they know that Cherry Pie is the Superior Pie and that I am correct, and that everyone should listen to ME!!!
|
|
|
zchmrkenhoff
Novice Member
Joined: 4/19/09
The biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter |
1/22/10 3:16:44 PM#36
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
I come to the opposite conclusion. When you have a real functioning Democracy with a Constitution nad rights for minorities, the LESS participation in that Democracy, the MORE successful it is. It's like you're sitting at the dinner table, and the waiter says, well, you can have Cherry Pie or Apple pie. BUT, we're just going to decide for you, UNLESS you get up from the dinner table and walk across the room and write which pie you want on a piece of paper. I like both. I might be content to just sit right there and see what they bring me. Either way, I'm getting some pretty good pie. Why should I get up from the table? This means, hey, the menu ain't so bad. But what if the choice is between Apple Pie, and Turd Pie? In that case, pretty much everyone is going to get up nad walk across the room nad write Apple Pie on a piece of paper so they don't get Turd Pie. The people complaining about "the electorate" are the ones that have a very strong preference, and can't believe everyone doesn't think like they do. I want Cherry Pie. How could ANYONE sit there and get served Apple Pie! Apple Pie sucks! Are they stupid, lazy, ignorant! Don't they know that Cherry Pie is the Superior Pie and that I am correct, and that everyone should listen to ME!!!
well you make a good point here. "Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro |
