Very simple. A democratic system allows people to decide. Its all about votes, elections and plebicites. with all the bribes and the blackmail many of those end up wrong anyway. if u give the people the choice they will desside for themselfs, not for the good of the country. A king would have absolute control. Its true that it would be a hard task to choose a king from all the general population. but things would get done at once. Imagine him as a social-dictator. Could u guess the time and money Everyone waistes to hold all those metings and referundums to make decisions?

in conclusion 1 person should be at the head of a country. ( not the usa because u caused enough touble this way )

If memory serves, the words, commonwealth, Canada, French, separatist all come to mind for some reason. King, I'll bet that many of your fellow Montreal inhabitants might have an answer for this that you wouldn't enjoy.

For what it's worth.

Nox

like 65% of montreal is not french canadian.
But what im trying to prouve here is that with one person taking dessisions everything is much easyer, and things get done.

I agree. However, that is what totalitarianism is all about. In this case, your singular leader is a King vs. a dictator.

Nox

I agree, provided that the king is me.

One of my first actions shall be to arrange your execution (kingenrage).

i belive the differnce between a king and a dictator would be the that king will priviledge the ppl \ te dictator would priviledge what gets him and his friends richer and more powerfull.

Do u agree that a country run by one man is better then one run by 200?

As FOAD said, as long as it was me. Otherwise I prefer the group approach.

Nox

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!
Yes, if one man were allowed to make decisions, decisions would get made, but they would NEVER be decisions that were good for the populace. I think you have a romanticized view of what kings were when the world still had a lot of them. Kings were unfair asshole dictators. Totalitarianism is inherent in all monarchies.
Corruption and waste were no less previlant then either. The people charged with doing the kings bidding were often bribed, and anyone connected remotely to the king could LITERALY get away with murder. This is much less true now.
Kickenrage, get your history straight before opening your mouth.

Homer

lets say that im looking at modern day history.
more specificly the Usa.
vote for war? years ago war was declared in a matter of hours. now its taking u guys months before actualy walking into Irak.
yes many kings were assholes. but one asshole is easyer to get rid off then an entiere party of assholes.
HA! you guys are stuck with republicans and democrats forever. only they are so many of them that all thier opinions get mixed up and nothing gets done.

A monarchy is more efficient. Look at the Kaiser's Prussia.

But a Monarchy is not neccessarily totalitarian.

There have been many benevolant monarchs. Their rule may appear to be crude by present standards, but in the context of the period in which they lived, it often makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
you guys are stuck with republicans and democrats forever.

---

True statement. Help me out a little please: The names of those superific Canadian Political parties are ... ?

Nox

A King is not as simple as one man leading a nation.

The reason monarchy's worked in Europe 500 years ago is the same reason people listen to the Pope today. They saw him as being chosen by GOD. Now, that would not go and people want to choose someone themselves - or at least think they have (I refer to the obvious cheating in the last US presidential elections). Of course, even the person chosen by the people was a mistake then there is teh problem that there is another 5 years of them.

Look at this for a scenario. Imagine that in every constitution (or whatever you call them in the States) 51% of the people vote Republican. You will have a 100% Republican senate even though 49% of the people wanted a Democrat government. The Reps could then pass any bill through with no opposition. WHICH IS WHERE A KING WOULD COME IN. The King could be the opposition, a neutral party with the ULTIMATE power to overrule bad decisions. Do you see?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
You will have a 100% Republican senate even though 49% of the people wanted a Democrat government. The Reps could then pass any bill through with no opposition.

---

Chucky,

In our system, the majority party controls the committee head positions. Most of the legislative work is done in committee which is why control of the committee is so important. Even when the Democrats 'controled' the Senate, there was still a Republican opposition as there will still be a Democratic opposition now that the Republicans control the Senate.

Now for some friendly, non-flame comments for you Chucky:

I understand that you are a Brit and that the nuances of our political system are a bit alien to you. This is precisely why you need to be careful when you make blanket statements about the United States government. You have damaged your credibility often because of flagrantly bogus comments which are totally wrong. You will notice that I tread lightly on the specifics of British Government although I do have a fairly good working knowledge of same. Your problem is that you are trying to dive too deep into the political system and give an analysis for which you are educationally ill-prepared (at this time). You also need to be careful about falling victim to the political spin which our political parties put on events. At times you have taken spin as gospel and by your responses you have not come out of it looking very smart. For the time being, you would be better off making comparisons between the US and British systems than by going after the US system, where at this stage of the game you leave yourself wide open for flames.

One man's opinion for what it's worth.

Nox

kingengrage got a kinda point there coz well, its true if the king was sensible and smart and good but how can we be sure he will be like that?

When you elect a President or Prime Minister or whatever, what do you actually know about them unless they've served before? That's not to say a King is better, but I am just saying that a President is not perfect.

The virtues of a King lie in the fact (or opinion) that the King is chosen by God - and I'd have to say that God (if there is a God) would make the best decisions. If you believe in God, then a King is the best leader PERIOD.

And Nox, America does not have proportional representation (to my knowledge) so there is always a chance that the majority party will have an unfair advantage over the minority party even without a landslide.

[This message has been edited by ChuckStone (edited 12-16-2002).]

who will back me on this?
Its better to have one neutral man taking a dessidion then X # of them with differnt values\ belifs\ sponsors\ wifes\ debating all day long about how to pass a law or not.
A king should have a box of suggstions. IF he wants his head to stay on his shoulders he will do what the ppl ask.
The motivation for any politician is to be there for another term.
The most important thing for a king is his kingdom.
The most important thing for a president is his international image. ( insert any other value u think ur president has )

Another lil thing, its not that im trying to shut u guys up, but nox & chucky, dont turn this post into a war.

King,

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
Another lil thing, its not that im trying to shut u guys up, but nox & chucky, dont turn this post into a war.

---

So far it hasn't gotten there. I for one don't want that. My impression of Chucky on this topic is that he's being reasonable and I have tried to do the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
The virtues of a King lie in the fact (or opinion) that the King is chosen by God - and I'd have to say that God (if there is a God) would make the best decisions. If you believe in God, then a King is the best leader PERIOD.

---

I don't have to go far into history to find some really bad 'chosen of God'. Monarchy is hereditary. Somewhere back in history, someone was pretty good and became King because of it. Subsequent generations were put in a position of 'maintaining power'. The procedures used for maintaining power fill the history books, and many times, not very pleasantly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChuckStone:
And Nox, America does not have proportional representation (to my knowledge) so there is always a chance that the majority party will have an unfair advantage over the minority party even without a landslide.

---

Totally true. The United States Constitution was based on the principle of 'Majority Rule' aka ... winner take all. The proportionality concept is an idea practiced by other democracies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
The most important thing for a president is his international image.

---

Not true. The Presidents that have made international problems their primary issue have a consistent habit of becoming 'former Presidents quickly.

Nox

Nox,
Remind me what is the most important thing for a president of a capitalistik country

( the word capitalist plays a BIG role in that question )

Simple ... expand your economy. Yes this entails internationalism but your constituency is within your borders. Do not forget the phrase, "All politics is local".

Nox

Economy.

What a word. The science of money.
bla bla bla i could go on

But while a capitalistic president is figthing to get the economy on its feet it is also attempting to get rid of the world of a threat wich is (some belive) thier own fault.
now thats international.
Dont u wish the usa could be a country wich does not have to send troops all over the world in order to defend your inernational intrests?

u seem to be evading the main qustion,
You prefer your country to be run by one man or a ( insert number of "morons" who
run the Usa here )

dont take it personnaly Nox, I have great respect for you. but when u live in a country that causes so much turbulence in a already windy world i have to express my anger towards someone.

interesting thread except that national borders and 'kings' are in effect rendered ineffective nowadays by global markets.. the leader of whatever country by whatever method are simply local tax collectors.. the time it gets messy is when the real power types who you never see have a squabble behind the scenes..
also on democracy.. it has an essential flaw.. it assumes that those in the majority made the correct decision.. in my experience the opposite is the case .. the visionary is usually voted down by the sheep.. what me a fascist??

quote:

---

Its better to have one neutral man taking a dessidion then X # of them with differnt values\ belifs\ sponsors\ wifes\ debating all day long about how to pass a law or not.

---

Show me a "neutral man" and I'll eat my hat and walk to pay homage to him. Besides, isn't the point of debate to ensure that the best decision is made; something which an individual basing his decision on his own personal views or whim can't possibly manage.

if it were a philosopher-king maybe. but thats just my softspot for plato talking.

foad.
by neutral i mean that he is not influanced by a party, or the majorety,
Because in democraty ppl "tend" to aprouve of the vast majorety.

So you'd rather have a monarch acting in the interests of himself than a government acting in the interests of the majority?

Explain.

"if u give the people the choice they will desside for themselfs, not for the good of the country. A king would have absolute control."

Did your own logic escape you kingenrage?
Are Kings not people? Do you not understand why there is a system of checks and balances [in theory anyway]?

The main problem with a democracy that I can see is that the candidates require money to win. And usually, especially in a country as balanced an electorate as the United States, the guy with the most money wins, because he can afford the best campaign.

That's not a problem inherent in democracy, it's just a problem that has come with lack of practice - and it will be sorted out in time.

I believe that there is a bonus in having a non-absolute monarch who is randomly selected (obviously from a sample of people with sufficient acumen) who will act as a "tie-breaker".

If one persoin rules millions of ppl thats just as stuped couse he deos hats good for him. If hes/shes a whimp then we'll still not get anywhere. The government deos what the ppl want. A war is a serious thing and it shouldn't be taken lightly.
-Artzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
So you'd rather have a monarch acting in the interests of himself than a government acting in the interests of the majority?

Explain.

---

Even if I migth have trouble seeing a system like that work someday i still debate the idia of it.
A king will have everyting he needs. unless he is power crazzy or really greedy he will do everything in his power to serve the ppl who back him as a king and who respect him.
now polititians and parties who won elections with private capitals and lil illigal favors will ahve to repay thier friends and assosietes.
Intrest of the population. Thats somthing.
every single citizen may desiere something. Should his will be executed like anyone elses? maybe... but that would lead to an anarchy or a system that has lost the power.
And instead of debating what should be done by hunderdes of ppl one person should choose the course of action.

"if u give the people the choice they will desside for themselfs, not for the good of the country. A king would have absolute control."

if someone askes you later on today what u want to change in your counrty ud start saying alot of useless bullshit that would only cause more problems. Ex: lower taxes ( less public service ), legalise drugs ( raise crime ), lower drinking age... bla bla bla.
some one should be at the top and make sure morons dont get what they want. but the things that the "top person" judges requiered will be accompliched.
It all tumbles if the top person is a moron.

and history has consistently proven that people at the top are often morons, and even those of great intelligence tend to be either selfish or disinterested in the day to day running of the country. Show me a king who based his decisions on "the good of the country" and I'll show you ten who didn't. Besides, any definition of the "good of the country" is entirely arbitrary.

It's possible to get rid of a bad elected government after five years. A bad king can be a lot more difficult to get rid of.

This is why the system of monarchy has now been superseded in Western European countries. It isn't a coincidence that these countries are wealthier, have a higher standard of living, a better educated populace, greater civil liberties, greater tolerance and also greater military power.

Now here's my opinion--

Democratic governments do actually do what they want, but they do have an uncanny power to convince the people that it is what THEY want. That's a good thing though, because the ignorance is bliss - and if the people want something EVEN if they only want it because the government have convinced them to want it - then they still want it right?

You want proof? Okay. The Kyoto agreement to any sane individual is an excellent piece of legislation, except for the severe minority that are damaged by it (being the propreiters of heavily pollutant industries ). However it is those few that are in the lucky lucky position of being able to influence the Pres. And he has managed to convince the masses that the Kyoto agreement is bad, that global warming does not exist, and that even if it did...it is not our fault. Which is madness.

If a president can do that, then he is no better than a king. But that does not mean he is worse.

A King's virtues lie purely in the Divine Right, that he speaks the word of God. If he does, then what he says is correct even in the face of all credible opposition. Having said that, if it is true, then God selects the President also... so whatever.