Monarchy Rule? Poll (no tax enclosed)

Post Reply New Topic

Please feel free to choose your poll answer as well as add a post.

Clearly someone is fit to rule because their grandfather was the most effective gangster in the region.

Monarchy is the second best.

Not this namby pamby British, Dutch, Monico, Japan, type of "figurehead" monarchy.

Real old school monarchy, when kings and emperors actually ruled, is the second best type of government. What they have in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

But the best of course is ...theocracy.

What the Brits had under Oliver Cromwell, and what Iran has now. Fanatical clerics of a religous sect over seeing everything that the executive, and legislative branches of the lay government does.

Interesting answer. A government that is made up of priests.

I could see that working if the priests were wise to the ways of men, so were able to see the problems clearly while at the same time being free of temptation of self interest and the various forms of exploitation that comes with power of any form. The rulers would most certainly be humble, sincere servants to God and Gods kingdom on earth.

The main problem with that idea in this day and age is the diversity of belief among a modern diverse population.
Especially in the west.

But still, thanks for your answer. An interesting answer indeed. I think under the correct circumstances such a government can indeed be the best.

Therein lies the problem, human nature.

Since government is going to be comprised of humans with that less-than-perfect human nature, a government needs to have a well defined built-in mechanism where those same less-than-perfect humans can limit the power of, and correct for the influence of, other humans with that same less-than-perfect human nature who have been awarded power in the government and have applied their power in negative ways.

A couple things I remember being said in past decades:

My Dad, a political science major with his masters in education,
"Any existing socio-economic-political system is workable, the problem is the less than perfect humans who work it."

And somewhere during my school years,
"If you remember nothing else, remember this; human societies are just like those pesky fractions in math class, they resolve to the lowest common denominator."

Yes, I agree. Mankind is the weak link.
I wonder if science of genealogy could ever be used to identify the most suitable people to work in government.
Perhaps looking for the best qualities, such as altruism, honesty, along with other essential attributes such as IQ and experience in related area of office.

I am not in favor of monarchy.

I was being a bit facetious.
I wouldnt want to live under either the Shah (monarchy),or under the ayatollahs (theocracy).

So it kinda threw me that you took my answer straight. And it got me thinking that -yes- both monarchy-and theocracy - might have a kind of "appeal"- in theory. But not as practiced in real life in the modern age.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 10 Apr 2021, 7:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The main use of a monarch nowadays is as a figurehead- a nominal head of state who attracts uncritical adoration from the masses, thereby making it less likely for the elected leader to become a cult figure in an way that is harmful to democracy. Sometimes, this even works!

Absolutist Monarchy is theoretically the most efficient form of government, as an all-knowing and benevolent dictator can implement the best possible policy without having to make inefficient concessions to various other factions.

However, all-knowing and benevolent dictators are less common than one might think. Instead we get:

- Qin Er Shi, Emperor of China, whose shenanigans destroyed the Qin dynasty in only 3 years
- Caligula, Emperor of Rome, whose shenanigans got him assassinated by his own bodyguards
- Wilhelm II, Kaiser of Germany, whose shenanigans led to a crushing defeat for Germany in WWI
- Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, whose shenanigans led to the Thirty Years' War
- King Leopold II, King of Belgium, whose shenanigans killed millions of people in the Congo Free State

... and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and

The Monarchy existing in current times does not sit well with me. Nor all that wasted land the royals own that they don't even use. Perhaps it truly is stopping elected leaders becoming blindly worshipped cultish figures...but if that's true then that's disturbing. I do find it bizarre when I see American politics and I see people buying merch items akin to how you'd support a sports team. Such behaviours can come across as trivialising politics and commercialising things to the point of insincerity (granted, very little of politics seems sincere).

Would we perhaps try to replace the royals if we took down the monarchy? Such as praising a group of celebrities and holding them in a similar regard to how we treat royals? I sometimes joke that The Kardashians are the royals of the celebrity world, since many of them were born into fame due to their family's past and their connections (akin to a royal being born into royalty and being thrown into the spotlight from a young age). Further, I remember one of them (I believe Kylie Jenner) starting a campaign to become a billionaire a while ago and her fans contributing to it because they wanted her to officially be one...which sounds absolutely insane to me. Sure, I joke about their near royalty status culturally speaking, but the lines between regular celebrity and royalty sure do blur at certain points.

Bad and out of date.

Unless my family get to be monarchs.

Think everyone deep down wants to be either a king, a queen or a princess.

The Medici are my favourite family of all time who aren't related to me and I think part of the reason why is cos they don't exist anymore in their power state. Some Italian guy came up to me and said 'my name is Lorenzo Medici' I'd just say 'cool name' not 'wow you're the actual Lorenzo'... Or 'wow are you from that family, you're better than me if so'

I like them cos they contributed so much to the art world and most beautiful art.

Then there were the "Fuggers of Augsberg". Sometimes called "the Medici of the north". A German dynasty of merchants and robber barons who ran north Germany in the Renaissance.

One reason I like the Fuggers is their name. I suspect that its related to the English F-word.

"Fug" means "joint" in German, and in Dutch. A "fugger" is a "joiner"- a guy who fits wood together like in furniture making. So the Fugger family was probably descended from some cabinet making dude.

The Anglosaxon tribes of north Germany that invaded Britain during the Dark Ages and founded the English language probably brought over the same words for the same thing- having to do with fitting things together- and it gradually evolved into the F word we know today- which still has to do with fitting things together!

Or thats my theory.

The poll question contains two parts, which one would normally expect to be answered with different answers. So having standalone "Yes" and "No" answer options doesn't make sense.

I'd answer "No" and "Yes" respectively.

Became out of date the minute England invaded Ireland...

Before that there were so many tribal chieftains that it is entirely possible that my family were royals...

So that makes it ok lol.

Seriously what's up with you if you want to be a serf? Royalty is for royals only. Sometimes makes for some messed up family dynamics though like when in the past one family member kills another.