• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Favorite/best form of government?

Favorite/best form of government?

  • Democracy/republic

    Votes: 26 76.5%

  • Monarchy (constitutional/absolute)

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Theocracy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Anarchy

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Other (explain in post)

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Total voters
    34
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
They're both heads of state. You also have yet to really explain how it's flawed. Another similiarity is that Obama's executrive powers are also limited by our own constitution.

Your apology is accepted tho lol. Try again man.
Click to expand...

That's about where the similarities end.

Queen - Ruler through blood. President - elected by the people.

Queen - titular head of state, no real powers. President - elected to govern, possesses executive powers.

Should I go on?
 
Last edited:
atrasicarius said:
file.php

No, there's really not.
Click to expand...

Lotta bluster there man. Explain how there aint, cuz I'm proving there is. That graphic helps your argument little.....
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
Lotta bluster there man. Explain how there aint, cuz I'm proving there is. That graphic helps your argument little.....
Click to expand...

Powers of the President: Veto, executive order, appointing the various secretaries, commander-in-chief of the military, authority to launch nuclear weapons, etc etc. Powers of the Queen of England: Mall openings, playing polo, throwing fancy parties. Get it?
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
That aint entirely fair man. The British royal family brings in many millions in revenue. The royal wedding brought in much. They help pay their way too.
Click to expand...

How did they get that money in the first place in order to be able to bring in millions in revenue?
 
(R)IGHTeous 1 said:
I already gave you more. Them both reaping the benefits of public tax dollars. I can go on if ya want.....
Click to expand...

The Royal family are essentially figureheads. The President is essentially elected to serve the people and GOVERN.

Hence, apples and oranges comparison.
 
jamesrage said:
How did they get that money in the first place in order to be able to bring in millions in revenue?
Click to expand...

It seems that they have inherited considerable wealth from their ancestors, or are engaged in their own commercial enterprises.
 
atrasicarius said:
Powers of the President: Veto, executive order, appointing the various secretaries, commander-in-chief of the military, authority to launch nuclear weapons, etc etc. Powers of the Queen of England: Mall openings, playing polo, throwing fancy parties. Get it?
Click to expand...

I've laid out some similarities which I believe make my point. The royal family also retains some military authority btw. My original point was that Elizabeth too serves her people. That there ARE some big smiliarities betweemn democracy and constitutional moanrchy.

I know the differences...
 
atrasicarius said:
Powers of the President: Veto, executive order, appointing the various secretaries, commander-in-chief of the military, authority to launch nuclear weapons, etc etc. Powers of the Queen of England: Mall openings, playing polo, throwing fancy parties. Get it?
Click to expand...

The royal family do have some official powers though. Dissolving parliament, accepting ministerial appointments, etc.
 
I like the idea of the city-state, like in ancient Greece. I also like the rule of law, not the rule of individuals. I also hate complicated and tangled laws, they must be plain and simple, so everyone can learn, understand and comply with them. I also believe that one must operate with what one has locally. For example, it's madness to transport salad 1000 miles if you can grow it a mile away.

So you see, I'm not fond of empires and big countries of centralized power.
 
atrasicarius said:
I would say that's the ideal form for a society,...
Click to expand...

Agreed.

atrasicarius said:
...but it's not really feasible.
Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by 'feasible.' If you mean in an immediate sense; I'd have to agree. If you mean that human nature is too savage, etc., so as to preclude the possibility of such a society, I think that's just nonsense.
 
NGNM85 said:
Agreed.



That depends on what you mean by 'feasible.' If you mean in an immediate sense; I'd have to agree. If you mean that human nature is too savage, etc., so as to preclude the possibility of such a society, I think that's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Essentially what you said. At the point where technology has advanced enough to grant everyone's wants with a snap of the fingers, anarchism won't just be possible, it will be inevitable. We haven't reached that point yet, though.
 
atrasicarius said:
Essentially what you said. At the point where technology has advanced enough to grant everyone's wants with a snap of the fingers, anarchism won't just be possible, it will be inevitable. We haven't reached that point yet, though.
Click to expand...

I really don't think we have to wait for some kind of 'Singularity'-type event. I think virtually all the prequisites already exist. At the very least, we are clearly capable of something more humane and equitable than the status quo.
 
NGNM85 said:
I really don't think we have to wait for some kind of 'Singularity'-type event. I think virtually all the prequisites already exist. At the very least, we are clearly capable of something more humane and equitable than the status quo.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but that's not really saying very much. I don't think we're quite advanced enough yet. The problem is, our current society is extremely interdependent. You need people growing food where it's possible to grow it, people to put it on trucks and trains and ships, people to make the trucks and planes and ships, etc etc. Anarcho-syndicalism works great on a small scale, but it falls apart if you try to scale it up.
 
Pretty much any government that is strong and brings justice and prosperity to the region it governs (while maintaining honorable relationships with its neighbors and allies) is fine by me.

That's less about form of government as good spirit, energy, and self-control. Perverseness, apathy, and lack of discipline can pervert the function and purpose of all political systems.
 
Last edited:
Constitutional Monarchy just seems ideal to me. Marriage of democracy and monarchy. Been working quite well in Britain, Spain, Japan, etc.
 
atrasicarius said:
Well yeah, but that's not really saying very much. I don't think we're quite advanced enough yet. The problem is, our current society is extremely interdependent. You need people growing food where it's possible to grow it, people to put it on trucks and trains and ships, people to make the trucks and planes and ships, etc etc. Anarcho-syndicalism works great on a small scale, but it falls apart if you try to scale it up.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could definitively say this. Where is the historical evidence to verify this contention? That's possible; but I think people display a confidence in such assertions that isn't necessarily warranted.
 
I like my constitutional monarchy, but I'd prefer a dictator instead of a monarch, choose the best leader, give 'em head of state status for life, and have all the benefits without an inbred twat on the back of my coins.
 
NGNM85 said:
Anarcho-syndicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I can't really see this being a lasting form of government on a global scale. It would require an almost inhuman amount of tacit consent to something really intangible...and ultimately some brute enforcement. Not at all surprised that the historical examples are on a very small scale, short term, in a backdrop of general social disorganization and unrest.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I like royal families too. There is a certain appeal and flashy celebrityness to them.

I'm also glad the US DOESN'T have a royal family.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's good to put their children in that position all the time, and for them to not have normal lives and for generations... What's the point? It's sad and it's for the sake of the OP's entertainment.. that isn't a good enough reason to give people that much false power and award it through a birth right.
 
StillBallin75 said:
It seems that they have inherited considerable wealth from their ancestors, or are engaged in their own commercial enterprises.
Click to expand...

So in other words the royal family today are descendants of the biggest welfare recipients in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom