Democracy and Freedom

[Curthose93]

Here's the back-story:

Over the last few weeks, I've come across a number of articles and essays on the internet that were essentially anti-democracy and pro-monarchy. As I read through them, I saw nothing suggesting that giving ultimate authority over the government to a single person would, ipso facto, take away our right to freedom of speech, thought and religion, and the right to protect our property and assets from unlawful seizure by the government. However, as I looked at the critiques and comments left by other readers, I noticed that all of them saw the issue in an exactly opposite light.

So basically, everything I hear regarding monarchism seems to suggest that the vast majority of people have this paranoid fear that inexplicably identifies 'monarchy' as 'autocracy', or 'simply one ruler' as 'one person with absolute, undeniable authority unbound by common law'.

So I ask: What do you think about monarchy? What do think are its merits and flaws, and why do you think it is so unpopular in the world?(opinions from US citizens desired especially)

EDIT: Almost forgot: There are Constitutional Monarchies. Basically, the King says what DOES happen, but a constitution/parliament makes sure that some things DON'T happen(limits the king's power). Also, by incorporating Popular Law into the system, grievances can be addressed, ensuring that the king doesn't interfere much in society.

I guess that's what I believe: One person with absolute authority over the government and military, who can't interfere in society(tell people what to wear, eat, worship, etc).

[Mzor203]

The problem is that if we have a monarchy and someone like Bush gets control, with no one able to veto his decisions at all. He could go ahead and make a law where everyone had to have their heads shaved and no one could do anything about it.

My thoughts.

[byee]

The problem is that if we have a monarchy and someone like Bush gets control, with no one able to veto his decisions at all. He could go ahead and make a law where everyone had to have their heads shaved and no one could do anything about it.

My thoughts.

Uh, Rex? Minus the head shaving rule, haven't we been basically living under what you've just described for the last 7.5 years?

[antimonic]

Uh, Rex? Minus the head shaving rule, haven't we been basically living under what you've just described for the last 7.5 years?

Bush is king of America? last time I checked he was president :)

And as for the head shaving, as stated by the op, the law would have to be passed through a parliamentary group (like over here in the uk).

Also take a look at the uk, to say that having a monarchy is like having a dictator - one person with unlimited power and control until they are overthrown - would not be true. Yes our Queen still has the right to block a law being passed but it has not happened in hundreds of years. We are democratic and still have a monarchy.

[Maverick]

The problem is that if we have a monarchy and someone like Bush gets control, with no one able to veto his decisions at all. He could go ahead and make a law where everyone had to have their heads shaved and no one could do anything about it.

My thoughts.
First of all Bush can't make laws. All laws are legislated in the Congress. The constitution clearly puts legislative power to the Congress.

Secondly, there is a thing called checks and balances. Since Congress is the branch that makes laws, should it pass a law to say no one is allowed to wear red shirts and Bush signs it into law, there is a thing called judicial review. The Supreme Court can strike down any law that is unconstitutional.

The system of checks and balances is designed to prevent one branch from getting more powerful than the other so there isn't one supreme ruler.

A problem I have with a monarchy is the lack of elections. Someone is entitled to rule a country based off being born. The citizens have no way to change rulers without a violent revolution, which history has shown, has only been a way to take down an unpopular monarch.

antimonic:
As for the UK, your monarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be more symbolic rather than an actual functioning government body. So while it is a monarchy, it doesn't really have the power of a traditional one.

[ssgliberty]

The problem is that if we have a monarchy and someone like Bush gets control, with no one able to veto his decisions at all. He could go ahead and make a law where everyone had to have their heads shaved and no one could do anything about it.

My thoughts.

i agree

[tombstonequeen]

The US isn't much of a democracy anymore
we are more capitalist now

[Maverick]

Capitalism isn't a government; its an economic system.

[Oblivion]

The problem is that if we have a monarchy and someone like Bush gets control, with no one able to veto his decisions at all. He could go ahead and make a law where everyone had to have their heads shaved and no one could do anything about it.

My thoughts.

Uh, Rex? Minus the head shaving rule, haven't we been basically living under what you've just described for the last 7.5 years?

Agreed.
I definitely think Presidents should be called Kings or Queens because they are cool words, but no other reason.

Democracy was the reason the US started; people wanted to be free from others who were trying to control them with monarchy.
I don't see a point in making the US or anywhere else, a monarchy.
People should have their say in what they want, and if one person can easily hurt/destroy a civilization by being the son of a king, then the country will fall eventually.
Edit:
antimonic:
As for the UK, your monarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be more symbolic rather than an actual functioning government body. So while it is a monarchy, it doesn't really have the power of a traditional one.
Agreed, the UK monarchy is symbolic.
Most countries that are under the Queens 'rule' have a prime minister or other person that really is the leader

[tombstonequeen]

exactly that is why i think we r a capitalist society think of it why don't we have universal health insurance?
cause higher peeps in the medical field pay of government officials against it
but hilary wasn't bought over we would have had universal health care

[Mzor203]

Arg, you aren't understanding. I'm saying what if our country was a COMPLETE dictatorship? That would not be good by any means. Then the head shaving could happen, because with a complete dictatorship, ewhat the dictator says goes. Until people revolt.

That's what I meant. And, as I said, Bush can't do a lot of things without congress OKing it, so we aren't under complete dictatorship. We are in a republic.

So the head shaving stuff was meant as a funny example of what could happen IF we had a COMPLETE dictatorship.

[trn19]

Every type of government and every economic system is flawed, some more than others. Monarchy shouldn't even be considered. More than 200 years are worth nothing?

[Sapphire]

antimonic:
As for the UK, your monarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be more symbolic rather than an actual functioning government body. So while it is a monarchy, it doesn't really have the power of a traditional one.

To be pedantic about it, the UK has a constitutional monarchy. There are different types of and none are any less of a monarchy than the others. The Queen has power to veto any law that Parliament creates as they need her signature for them to be incorporated into our judicial system.

exactly that is why i think we r a capitalist society think of it why don't we have universal health insurance?
cause higher peeps in the medical field pay of government officials against it
but hilary wasn't bought over we would have had universal health care

Capitalism is seperate from a monarchy.

[antimonic]

First of all Bush can't make laws. All laws are legislated in the Congress. The constitution clearly puts legislative power to the Congress.

(correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong :) Constitutional monarchy, still a monarchy and not as restricted as an Absolute monarchy, where the king or queen would retain all political power. Is also an obvious govermental body and also has the power of a traditional consitutional monarchy.

[Maverick]

You are wrong :) Constitutional monarchy, still a monarchy and not as restricted as an Absolute monarchy, where the king or queen would retain all political power. Is also an obvious govermental body and also has the power of a traditional consitutional monarchy.Thanks for clearing that up. For some reason American schools have always gave the perception that the queen has no power and is just mainly symbolic for traditional purposes. I never was taught that the Queen has the power to veto any law and must sign them.

[Hyper]

I find democracy to be one of the worst forms of government

I find parliamentary monarchy to be one, if not the best, form of government

[Maverick]

Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. :P

That's why I am a fan of a Republic because a rule of law puts limits on the majority and protects the minority.

[Whisper]

I like Canada's system
A Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary Democracy

[ssgliberty]

First of all Bush can't make laws. All laws are legislated in the Congress. The constitution clearly puts legislative power to the Congress.

Secondly, there is a thing called checks and balances. Since Congress is the branch that makes laws, should it pass a law to say no one is allowed to wear red shirts and Bush signs it into law, there is a thing called judicial review. The Supreme Court can strike down any law that is unconstitutional.

The system of checks and balances is designed to prevent one branch from getting more powerful than the other so there isn't one supreme ruler.

A problem I have with a monarchy is the lack of elections. Someone is entitled to rule a country based off being born. The citizens have no way to change rulers without a violent revolution, which history has shown, has only been a way to take down an unpopular monarch.

antimonic:
As for the UK, your monarchy (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be more symbolic rather than an actual functioning government body. So while it is a monarchy, it doesn't really have the power of a traditional one.

also agreed

[Sapphire]

I like Canada's system
A Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary Democracy

We have the same here in the UK.
I think it works well :)

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

The system of checks and balances is designed to prevent one branch from getting more powerful than the other so there isn't one supreme ruler.


Unfortunatly, there isn't much stopping the Supreme Court from making decisions. And the SC is determined by the President. So the way I see it, the SC is the supreme ruler, being controlled by the President. It may seem in likeness of a conspiracy-theory, however it's the truth. They can change laws and "change" the constitution on a whim (by change I mean interpret, which is a subtlemroe official way of saying "stretching the turth") without being stopped. I have a few examples I learned from history, however they've long sinced departed form my memory. In the mean time, I'll be reading and re-reading the Constitution to really get into the founding fathers' minds.

We should have political debates more often here.

[Maverick]

Don't forget the Supreme Court justices have to be confirmed by the Senate as well. Once they are on they are on for life and at will can make decisions how they want without the political pressure of a president or citizens. And you are right, they can interpret it differently, but I do think the founders intended a strict interpretation.

[The Batman]

I actually like the set-up of our government. I think that there is a tad more work to be done but still it's good to me. I think that the power of law making needs to worked on more, because virtually the president has no power concerning it.

[Zephyr]

Democracy, sorry to say, has been proven to fail no matter what throughout history.
Prime example: The Romans

By switching out leaders often, there is no consistency.
Consistency is key when it comes to working well.
So this is one of the benefits of having a Monarchy,
You have consistency.

[foof1]

I think that all people should be able to try and be in government. A monarchy is not a good idea.

[Sapphire]

I think that all people should be able to try and be in government. A monarchy is not a good idea.

As has already been said, democracy is not destroyed just because a monarchy exists.

[Maverick]

But certainly more limited if a monarch can't be voted out?

[Sapphire]

That's assuming that the monarch interferes with and blocks Bills becoming Acts of Parliament. There are not many monarchs in the world today that will actually do this.

[Antares]

I think that the way the US has it set up works really well. In theory everyone has their own set powers and such and they can't really go over each other. They are all equal in their own sense. I think it is the same in other counties too. Canada seems that it is working pretty well up there. I think most of the governments of the world are working pretty well. Granted that there are some flaws in every government but on paper they mostly work well :D

[Mzor203]

I like Canada's system
A Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary Democracy

And the "monarch" can be impeached if need be. ;)

Which I think works well.