It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On Democracy and Kings
Politically, monarchism has a prestige just a tiny bit better than fascism, but not nearly as respectable as being Amish. Therefore, it behooves me to cut directly to the chase, and state very clearly why I am a monarchist: I am a monarchist because I am a democrat. That is, I believe that the will of the people, their traditions and customs, their concern for their families, their communities, and for the future should determine the shape of any political order. And monarchy is the highest form of this democracy.
Now, the first response to that is likely to be, “That is what our democracy does, and what a tyranny doesn’t do; democracy enthrones the will of the people, while monarchy enthrones the will of the tyrant.” But it is clear to me, especially in this late date of our democracy, that it enthrones the will of determined and well-financed minorities, that it dissolves the customs and traditions of the people, and that it has no concern for the future. And a king may indeed be a tyrant, but such is the exception rather than the rule.
Tyranny is a degeneration of proper monarchy and generally happens only in degenerate times, and even then, the king has to be speaking for some other and greater force, such as a strong army or a commercial oligarchy. A king, no less than a president, must consider the forces and interests in his kingdom. But a king is free to judge the justice of the arguments; a president is free only to count the votes. And while the president might attempt to engage in persuasion, in the end he himself can only be persuaded by power, that is, by whoever controls the votes, which is very likely to be the one who controls the money. A king may also be persuaded by power and money, but he is always free to be persuaded by justice. And even when a king is a tyrant, he is an identifiable tyrant; much worse is when a people live in a tyranny they may not name, a system where the forms of democracy serve as cover for the reality of tyranny. And that, I believe, is our situation today.
Do you really need a Master telling you what to do?
Todays democracy has been corrupted with politicians only looking as far as the next election cycle.
Originally posted by ChrisF231
A constitutional monarchy is probably the best form of government. Why? Because the monarch (who represents the nation and by extension, the people) keeps the prime minister (and the rest of the politicians) in check.
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
What American revisionist historians generally omit from their descriptions of monarchy is that most, if not all monarchs are elected. This is most obvious in the case of the Kings of Germany and Roman Emperors, but can also be seen in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and in the unpopular reign of John Plantagenet of England.
Originally posted by debris765nju
What a sophomoric suggestion. We had Kings before and didn't like them. We fought wars to get rid of them. We are a FREE people, We bow to no one. I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans are satisfied with the job "Burger King" is doing. I choose anarchy before monarchy (sic).
The more concentrated power is the easier it is to corrupt.
Originally posted by carpooler
I always felt this was the gist of the terrible war predicted in Washington's third prophecy, that consumes the U.S.A. and leaves most of what's left, under a Blue Ensign, which of course has always been French, as opposed to the Golden Spanish flag, or the Union Jack of Great Britain.