Death to the Monarchy, Is the monarchy a good or bad thing? Options

[crocodilo]

Do any of you guys out there see any good in the Monarchies of such countries like England? All the Monarchies are is a waste of money paid by the working class tax payers. Do any of you guys think that any Monarchies are pointless and should be removed?

[not_for_anything]

pointless, democracy is better, i mean i guess its ok with england where the queen is only a figurehead, but not monarchy as in dictator, like king hitler, or in African countries

[*mipadi*]

I believe it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who believed that a monarchy was the most efficient form of government (although an aristocracy was perhaps the best). Thomas Hobbes had similar thoughts, as did John Locke. A government with a single leader will be best able to control and manage a country. The power of a government is inversely proportional to the number of people controlling that government.

Of course, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were all discussing political makeup as theory, meaning that they worked under the assumption that the best would rule; Hobbes in particular, in Leviathan, worked with the assumption that a ruler would not usurp, or take, more power than he was entitled.

[*Statistik*]

ahahahahah

[Spirited Away]

ahahahahah

hahahahahhaha... no this is your warning for spamming.


Oh... back to the debate. What's so bad about monarchies?

[not_for_anything]

I think its the potential to grow too powerful and take away freedom...I guess its a "whatever floats your boat" kinda thing, as long as its a good king/queen, i guess it doesnt matter, I think there should be a balanced power system though, to share the power

[EriaNight]

It really depends on the country. I like democracy, but if we're talking about England: the king/queen is more like a representative for the country than a person with real power. The king/queen does not have as much power as parliament or the prime minster [at least not anymore] but each monarchy is different.

A dictatorship [since it was meantioned previously and note the wording; it is not a monarchy at all] has a lot more control than a constitutional monarchy, but some dictatorships are flawed simply because there is a lot of lying, propaganda, and too much control over the community.

Um for people who want some definitions so they know what I'm talking about...

Monarchy: King/queen represent the country in present times, but depending on the country have varying control; a Constitutional Monarchy like England is a monarch which has a constitution (i.e. like we have a constitution...Bill or Rights...etc...)

Dictatorship: Dictator is the head; usually is controled by one person who can have an elite group of followers. Very powerful [not necessarily in a good way; i.e. Hitler, but his government was Nazism]

Communism: (not meantioned but still relevent to the previous definition)Usually doesn't work because alot of times the main person in charge gains more power than the people and it can turn into a dictatorship.

Totalitarianism: Total control over the people; very powerful; Hitler was similar to a totalitarianist dictator...his country was in no way a monarchy

Oligarchy: Elite group rules the country; Aristocracy/elite group can have alot or too much power

Yay European history!!! There are a lot more but those are the ones that kind of relate tothis type of topic.

I agree that it takes a lot of taxes to keep up the king and queen, but England has gotten a lot of respect for their monarchial history...respect which we as a nation could use at the moment (don't yell at me!! but a lot of peole hate America! I love america, but gahhh it's true)

.::Molz (senior in high school!!)

[crocodilo]

Throughout History, Monarchy hasn't gained respect, it has disrespected the culture of many tribal societies
Queen Victoria's reign resulted in the colonialization of many less powerful countries, killing many innocent, indigenous people
Same applies to the Spanish monarchy who wiped out many inigenous south Americans just to fullfill their greed
What about Ivan the Terrible. Is using the Oprichniki to terrorize innocent peasants respectable?
Monarchies from many nations have caused suffering

[crocodilo]

The current English Monarchy doesn't even do anything.
The royalty merely sit on their huge asses living a life of luxary whilst absorbing the taxes of the working class
If the queen has no power, what is the point in having a Queen
She is not even cool

[sammi rules you]

it's something that's important to the English culture. i think if they didn't want the monarchy around and were bothered by them taking in their taxes, they would get rid of them. the royal family are like celebrities.

[racoons > you]

actually, they bring a great deal of revenue into the country, through tourism. people come to see buckingham palace, the changing of the gaurd, etc.

plus, they're no bother, and they give the tabloids something to do

[*mona lisa*]

I guess in a country like England it's okay. But other countries that are tied to the monarchy such as Canada....the ties should be cut. It's really not that important to be a part of the Commonwealth and I think it is a waste of our money.

[crocodilo]

Most of the working class English people I have spoken to see the monarchy as wasteful and idiotic including some highly educated people like teachers.
It is not up to the people whether the monarchy goes or stays as the army, police, media protect the queen preventing her assassination by some hero of the people from the Proletariat class.

[crocodilo]

If tourists come to see the queen generating wealth but it also costs money to keep the monarchy then I have a perfect solution

Why don't the people of England assassainate the queen and then stuff her and display her in the streets of London. This allows the wealth creation through tourism as well as severely reducing the costs required to maintain the Monarchy

[crocodilo]

The people of England don't even desperately need the money brought in through tourism as England is the worlds 4th greatest industrial power
Having the futile monarchy just to create extra wealth is just greed as the majority of that money generated through tourism is distributed to the private enterprises such as hotels, supermarkets, ect... The money doesn't actually go to the working class who need it most so having a monarchy for tourist reasons is pointless

[Spirited Away]

Alright, you MUST stop double/triple posting. Learn to edit your posts instead, PLEASE. This is your warning.

[EriaNight]

Throughout History, Monarchy hasn't gained respect, it has disrespected the culture of many tribal societies
Queen Victoria's reign resulted in the colonialization of many less powerful countries, killing many innocent, indigenous people. Same applies to the Spanish monarchy who wiped out many inigenous south Americans just to fullfill their greed
What about Ivan the Terrible. Is using the Oprichniki to terrorize innocent peasants respectable?
Monarchies from many nations have caused suffering

I get what you are stating but that is not the kind of respect I meant. England is respected for their strength; And anyway, you went really far back so I'm going to as well...

Do you not know of Queen Elizabeth? She was a great queen in too many ways to name.

[racoons > you]

^

you're right...

she hardly massacred ANY catholics...

[EriaNight]

err...was that sarcasm?? (I hope not because it's actually true!) She was religiously tolerant or so I thought?

.::Molz

[fameONE]

I'm going to drop a 'What if...'

What if the Bush family was the moarchial rule in the United States? What if W reigned for another 10 years before he relinquished his title to Jeb?

Still want a monarchy?

[EriaNight]

Well that "What If" statement has many factors to consider. The Answer to that statement may depend on:

1) how much power Mr. Bush would have as a monarch; it would be entirely odd if the public all of a sudden had no say since America has been a democratic republic for so long...

2) Also--what major decisions he would make during those ten years and how they impact people's lives.

Were you assuming I'd say no? I do not think anyone [republican/democrat/other party] can logically answer that question without knowing what the future has to bring.

.::Eria