Looking at all of the types of government out there and all the problems they have and all the benifits they have sometimes i think that having a monarchy would be better then any democratic or communist or whutever kind of system. The problem with monarchy tho of course is that that person does have the ability to screw things up really bad. But what if say you had somone who was running the country who had a good heart was very very wise. this person was also never biased and was totally objective in every decison he/she made. The problem with monarchy is that you are probubly never or at least almost never get a person with thoes traits you would want in a supreme leader. But if you did would you not prefer something like that steering the coure of your nation rather thne a group of squabbling people elected to office that can take forever to come to a decision about anything that an individual could just do in a much shorter amount of time.
everyone elect me for supreme rular of the earth!!!
here, we already have a monarchy and i can’t say i have learnt a lot from having one. The only thing i can say is that supreme power will surely corrupt the purest, wisest and most objective of people, wouldn’t it?
i actually feel quiet sorry for the monarchy…i wouldn’t particularly like it if i were forced to sleep with my cousin, can only join the army and (in the british case) have bad teeth. it seems rather inhumane, actually.
lol, that’s very true. My thoughts on the monarchy are that I can understand why someone would support giving someone a position of privilege and prestige according to merit, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what bizzare and esoteric reasoning leads people to the conclusion that an entire family should perennially awarded these luxuries.
The debate of royalty in great britain is one that causes great divide over here, for those who care. For me, it doesn’t affect anything i do, although i can understand how some see it as a waste or an asset. Those who are against having a royal family are seen by some as rebels to society while those for the royal family are considered by an equal number to be old fasioned. Nevertheless, the queen is given a great deal of respect on meeting her, even by those opposed to her placement. I know an avid anti-royalist who has shaken hands with the queen. He was smiling, not that he felt he had any choice. I guess it depends on how you look at the royal family. If i had to stand somewhere, i would most probably be against the royal family, though I am not going to urge that the monarchy be abolished. What do outsiders think?
How can one family be supreme over a whole country? This is why democracy is the only system that works. Not only is monarchy corrupt when it is started after 100s of years the family (look at UK in which the only example of good looks and normal character are in the young princes and Diana was not royal) become less capable than average people because of inbreeding and traditional systems.
okay when i say monarchy, i mean dictatorship. Would it be good to have one where the dictator was a perfect being of some sort. (ie. will always do what is good, right and fair for the people and environment of the country and would also have the ability to always deliver on his promises.)
A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best way to run a small country, a benevolent monarchy the best way to run a medium/large country. It’s just finding the benevolent people to run these things, that’s what makes a democracy better in the end.
And we’ve not all got bad teeth, it’s a lot better than it was 30 years ago.
At least we’re not known as the country of boring people. And don’t forget that we own Canada, we’re just lending it to you for the time being. When I’m PM I’m sure I’ll get round to clearing the rifraff out of it and using it as a giant chess board or something like that, put it to good use again.
hey now, easy cowboy. does this have anything to do with a paddy? because i still haven’t figured out what that is (you used it in another post). also, own canada, eh? i think only america can have rights to that claim, oh, woops! i suppose with blair’s nose so far up bush’s ass, the two countries might just as well be the same. (jokes, jokes, jokes. peace peace peace!) but seriosly, i can see why you’re eager to be pm.
We bought Canada off someone else at one point when America was still our colony. And we bought Manhattan Island off the Dutch as well. Otherwise it would still be New Amsterdam rather than New York.
I’ve hear that the Canadians are the only country to succesfully invade America and burn down its capital, is that true?
As for a paddy, it’s to have a strop. Err, to go into a mood. I have no idea where it originated from, but paddies was a term the English used for he Irish at one point, though I’m not sure if it’s related.
The reason the British have such bad teeth may be due to the fact that they consume more sweets per capita than anyone else. But i digress…
The problem with a monarchy Frighter is that one person can not possibly know all of the details necessary in order to run anything other than a very small state. And it is among the many people who assist the monarch that the various political intrigues will begin. Also noone is perfect, there need to be other people involved in Government to provide checks and balances against tyranny and despotism.
but yeah… opinions?