The only true government that will work - MONARCHY

Once again nation wide elections show division amongst its people and this is not healthy. SEE CURRENT RIOTS IN USA. Is there a solution? I think so because democracy is dead and has been for some time.

Is it REALLY crucial for the people to make the selection of their leader or is it crucial that the leader have the right answers? Think about it for a minute.....no more elections..... no more various party systems..... but a single system where elections are no longer required. A system where there are no longer a need for politicians ... bye bye senate, House of Represenatives, lobbyists, along with local and state politicians.... only the begining.

Someone who has an appointment for life as supreme ruler who will be held responsible for his/her actions WITH the proper balance. This balance comes with having the BEST advisers known along with polls to the "people" for feedback and be able to make proper decisions without getting emmotional and move on "HARD" issues that are for everyone. IMO I think most people are greedy and self centered and are too close to the problem to make an intelligent decision... BUT here comes another problem that goes hand and hand... free speech.

Freedom of speech.....too many voices .... too many people with different opinions AND many of their opinions are wrong because they are not aware or do not have the data needed to make right decisions. I also think "free speech" has turned away from what its original meaning was meant to be. To be able to say anything you want brings anarchy and chaos to those who hearts are filled with hate and destruction.

Current monarchies are no longer effective and ALL of them are nothing more than a symbol with little no authority. The monarchy system I have in mind would be different than the ones today.... the offspring of the KING (monarchy) (first born) would not be automatically be eligible to take the role after the King dies....Oh NO.... the individual that best shows its qualities and knowledge and extreme love for its people wether it be male or female would be the replacement and if the offspring are not eligible....than someone within the family tree AND AGAIN that person MUST show very specific traits. Traits of a King or Queen that can lead EFFECTIVELY....AND if no one is found than it goes back to its people who selects the next King or Queen based on a hard vetting system that most would fail.

It is my belief changing government leaders every few years is a BIG mistake. The people can be represented by its KING. The King would be REQUIRED to hold court and listen to its people so he can better lead his people to peace and prosperity and if not then dethroned and punished with death. Why death? It would be easier to take down a monarch than the current system in place.

Do you think a system like this would work in USA?

It's hard to imagine such a radical change, but my husband always says we really need a benevolent dictator.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

There are monarchies around the world now. How are they doing? What you miss here is that we have thousands of years of data on this that prove things.

I notice the ONLY two places with capitalism, Hong Kong and Singapore, are doing wonderfully. That said, Singapore is taking a serious hit after their government debt load increased. In fact, Singapore is hardly capitalist at all right now. So, how are today's monarchies faring?

Oh, and New Hampshire was declared the most free state. Well, its also just about the most financially prosperous one. Libertarians are welcome and their lives WILL improve after the move. I'm moving there now. You should move to somewhere and install your dictatorship. We can then compare and contrast how we are doing.

originally posted by: VegHead
It's hard to imagine such a radical change, but my husband always says we really need a benevolent dictator.

Um, might be a bit hard to find one of those, power corrupts...

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: VegHead
It's hard to imagine such a radical change, but my husband always says we really need a benevolent dictator.

Um, might be a bit hard to find one of those, power corrupts...

Yes, I agree. I think when he says this, he means it theoretically. A benevolent dictator does seem like an oxymoron.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

Freedom of speech.....too many voices .... too many people with different opinions AND many of their opinions are wrong because they are not aware or do not have the data needed to make right decisions.

Who are you to say which opinions are wrong, and which decisions are right? What is right for you is not necessarily what is right for me.

Imagine how this would apply to the King and the people too.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

There are varying forms of monarchy.

I am not a proponent of the type you describe.

But I am a monarchist.

I think it`s not possible to successfully govern large groups of people with different goals.
using blanket policies to govern people with different backgrounds, different lifestyles,different goals never works,never has worked.
less centralized power and more localized power is the way to go.
let the people govern themselves on a local level and everyone will be much happier.

no form of a centralized government that oversteps it`s bounds will ever work.

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

Freedom of speech.....too many voices .... too many people with different opinions AND many of their opinions are wrong because they are not aware or do not have the data needed to make right decisions.

Who are you to say which opinions are wrong, and which decisions are right? What is right for you is not necessarily what is right for me.

Imagine how this would apply to the King and the people too.

And you would have the right to pack your crap and move otherwise continued speech like yours would NOT be tolerated and you would be either put in jail and THEN deported or executed.

END of that .....

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: VegHead
It's hard to imagine such a radical change, but my husband always says we really need a benevolent dictator.

Um, might be a bit hard to find one of those, power corrupts...

The corruption would be a small issue. I have not laid out the new monarchy system that I have discussed BUT the monarch would be held liable for ALL decisions....

in a democracy or republic, the gov't reflects the people (or at least a council of statesmen who represent their people). when I say that I mean that there isn't anything in that gov't that wasn't in the people first, that at least enough people placed value in it to allow it into the gov't... that includes corruption! we have a corrupt gov't because there is alot people who like profiting from this corruption outside of the gov't.

in a monarch, the people reflect the gov't. the monarch is the law, what he says has to be obeyed, you have to act according to what he deems! and usually, the only way to get rid of him is to stage a rebellion and kill him and all his family. if he decides he wants to marry your daughter, well you dang sure better just allow it. if he decides you should marry a monster in human form, well, you better accept that also. they are all well and good as long as you have a self-sacrificing, caring person in charge willing to place his country and their needs above their own. but.... as history shows... that seldom happens. which is why most of the monarchies have been stripped of most of their power and the ones who still retain it are really not that great of places to be in.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

O K
Now tell us just who it is that you would install as the "Dictator and Chief" of the United States of American ? Assuming we get to keep the current name of our country.

OH ! let me guess...

Her lordship Hillary ???

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

Freedom of speech.....too many voices .... too many people with different opinions AND many of their opinions are wrong because they are not aware or do not have the data needed to make right decisions.

Who are you to say which opinions are wrong, and which decisions are right? What is right for you is not necessarily what is right for me.

Imagine how this would apply to the King and the people too.

And you would have the right to pack your crap and move otherwise continued speech like yours would NOT be tolerated and you would be either put in jail and THEN deported or executed.

END of that .....

And you can use this same exact statement to describe your theories for those of us who think a monarchy is a terrible idea........newsflash this country was founded to get away from that garbage when we separated from a king the first time trying to impose laws on a nation that he could not (or did not care to) understand because he was trying to rule from across the ocean.

a reply to: DeathSlayer
Historically, monarchy always had the same drawbacks as other systems of selection, viz. a) Nothing guarantees that the person with the right qualities even exists at the time b) Nothing guarantees that the people can be induced to choose the right person instead of the wrong person.

You seem to be suggesting "selection of the best candidate within one family", and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms worked something like that. You had a family that was descended from Odin, but the eldest son wasn't always the best man.
The idea of a fixed line of succession is a slightly later development (encouraged by Edward III to support his claims on the French throne).

I think the current British monarchy works as well as any. The real advantage is having someone at the top who is above politics, a point of unity, which is not easy to achieve if they have to go through an election. By having a head of state who is not the head of government, we can criticise the head of government without tearing the nation apart.

Democracy is not dead. It's alive. Only those who get the result they don't want think it's dead. That said, in some countries (e.g. the US) democracy at the highest level is really challenged by the expense and the divisiveness.

A monarchy is not a good replacement unless it is subservient to the people.

The UK’s model of constitutional monarchy / parliamentary democracy seems to work. None of this presidential crap that seems to breed an elite political class and dynasties, replete with nepotism, opacity and vested interest i.e. you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: DeathSlayer

O K
Now tell us just who it is that you would install as the "Dictator and Chief" of the United States of American ? Assuming we get to keep the current name of our country.

OH ! let me guess...

Her lordship Hillary ???

I see you have NEVER read any of my threads and posts so I will not answer your question because you are trolling like most here....

originally posted by: paraphi
Democracy is not dead. It's alive. Only those who get the result they don't want think it's dead. That said, in some countries (e.g. the US) democracy at the highest level is really challenged by the expense and the divisiveness.

A monarchy is not a good replacement unless it is subservient to the people.

The UK’s model of constitutional monarchy / parliamentary democracy seems to work. None of this presidential crap that seems to breed an elite political class and dynasties, replete with nepotism, opacity and vested interest i.e. you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

A monarchy system is ONLY for the people AND with one "the people" know EXACTLY who is responsible....

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Traits of a King or Queen that can lead EFFECTIVELY

In other words, a tribal leader that will gladly put their life before the rest of the tribe.

The only way a King and Queen scenario will work is to make everyone a King / Queen and stick them all in a Matrix world where every entity around them is an AI bot.

Then when ego steps in, switch them off, permanently.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

does saudi arabia look like the saudi monarchy is overly concerned with the people???

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
A monarchy system is ONLY for the people AND with one "the people" know EXACTLY who is responsible....

I disagree. A monarchy is where a person "by birth right" rules. They may rule for "the people", but they also rule for themselves and the perpetuation of their line.

To some extent, what you are describing in the OP is a monarchy constrained by laws. Take one small step and you get lawmakers. Another small step and you get the UK. Yet another small step you get the symbolic monarchies, of which there are several in Europe. Keeping the monarch absolute results in abuse and neglect of the people.

Arguably, the reason why the English (later UK) monarchy survived is that its wings were clipped at Runnymede (England) in June 1215, and the monarch became subservient to the wider will of "the people" within a legal framework.