The case for monarchy over democracy
Jun 23, 2018 13:26:10 GMT 10
Post by RockyMountainExtreme on Jun 23, 2018 13:26:10 GMT 10
Yesterday, after checking my live stream on YouTube I did with mwalker96 and X2M after wrapping it up, I came across another live stream from a user named "David M.J. Aurini". This was a one-person stream, a speech to be exact, and the part of the video he was at when I clicked on the stream did spike my interest. In that part of the video, he made a case that monarchy works better than democracy.
He stated that in a monarchy, only one person has to be good, while in a democracy, everyone has to be good.
I also looked at this topic further to find other points people bring up to back up their points on monarchy being superior to democracy, and the article I came across was one from LibertyHangout. In that article, they state that Americans foolishly associate democracy with freedom, when in reality, democracy really just means "majority rule", so a good democracy can only exist with good and moral people, otherwise you have a hyperbolic oligarchy or mob rule. The US uses a special kind of democracy, a representative democracy, or a republic, where we elect individuals to represent us in the Congress as well as to be a check and balance on the president. The problem there is with that, it's easy for people with no political acumen to run and get elected just because their campaigns sounded convincing enough, and it also lays the ground for corruption since they're only in office for a few years, and are less likely to be interested in the long-term effect of their political objectives, as they feel whatever deficiencies come from their legislation will be blamed on their successor.
Also, in the article, it states, just as David did in the stream, that in a monarchy, all decisions are made by one person, and therefore, there's only one person who needs to be held accountable. In a democracy, on the other hand, there are multiple people to be held accountable, and the problem with that is that they're able to play the blame game to try to stay clean. Sound familiar? Trump, the Democrats, the Republicans, the FBI, all blaming each other, yet taking no responsibility for themselves... In a monarchy, however, this cannot happen, since there's only one person to hold accountable.
Also, the article states that when a head of state is only there for 4-8 years, they are less likely to be concerned about the longevity of their country, while in a monarchy, they're in power for life, the only thing that can strip the monarch of that power is a violent revolution, so the monarch would feel a bigger responsibility for also their own sakes to keep things pleasant in their country.
Anyways, I myself am not taking sides here, I'm just bringing this article up because I thought it was interesting, but I do want to get your thoughts and concerns regarding this article, especially from SharksFan99 , Attorney General ReignMan , #Infinity , and @slowpoke1993 since they have a lot of knowledge and interest in politics.
Here's the link to the full article right here - Why Monarchy is Better Than Democracy
He stated that in a monarchy, only one person has to be good, while in a democracy, everyone has to be good.
I also looked at this topic further to find other points people bring up to back up their points on monarchy being superior to democracy, and the article I came across was one from LibertyHangout. In that article, they state that Americans foolishly associate democracy with freedom, when in reality, democracy really just means "majority rule", so a good democracy can only exist with good and moral people, otherwise you have a hyperbolic oligarchy or mob rule. The US uses a special kind of democracy, a representative democracy, or a republic, where we elect individuals to represent us in the Congress as well as to be a check and balance on the president. The problem there is with that, it's easy for people with no political acumen to run and get elected just because their campaigns sounded convincing enough, and it also lays the ground for corruption since they're only in office for a few years, and are less likely to be interested in the long-term effect of their political objectives, as they feel whatever deficiencies come from their legislation will be blamed on their successor.
Also, in the article, it states, just as David did in the stream, that in a monarchy, all decisions are made by one person, and therefore, there's only one person who needs to be held accountable. In a democracy, on the other hand, there are multiple people to be held accountable, and the problem with that is that they're able to play the blame game to try to stay clean. Sound familiar? Trump, the Democrats, the Republicans, the FBI, all blaming each other, yet taking no responsibility for themselves... In a monarchy, however, this cannot happen, since there's only one person to hold accountable.
Also, the article states that when a head of state is only there for 4-8 years, they are less likely to be concerned about the longevity of their country, while in a monarchy, they're in power for life, the only thing that can strip the monarch of that power is a violent revolution, so the monarch would feel a bigger responsibility for also their own sakes to keep things pleasant in their country.
Anyways, I myself am not taking sides here, I'm just bringing this article up because I thought it was interesting, but I do want to get your thoughts and concerns regarding this article, especially from SharksFan99 , Attorney General ReignMan , #Infinity , and @slowpoke1993 since they have a lot of knowledge and interest in politics.
Here's the link to the full article right here - Why Monarchy is Better Than Democracy
