The King of America

[TheBlackChidori]

Seriously, how many people think that a Monarchy in this country would actually succeed? You know how our Presidential Democracy works, right? "We the people?" Yeah, bull.

Explain how George Bush lost the popular vote to both John Kerry and Al Gore, but still became president. Our opinion doesnt matter. Its the old people at Washington that we also had no choice of, that lead the way.

So why dont we just skip the bullcrap, and have a Monarchy? Rome, Greece, Persia. The greatest empires of all time, at the peak of their civilzation, it was a monarchy. All of them. They all tried Democracy. Rome crashed and burned, Greece went broke, and Persia was destroyed and taken over.

So why dont we? The economy could be advantageous after some time. Sure, taxes would hike during the first 5-10 years, but think of how rich the country would be afterwards? We spend billions on politics. Campaigns, Senate, Congress, Judicial Courts, all of that crap. The politicians and their salaries and all their programs cost more to uphold than every other occupation combined, with the exception of entertainers.

So why not just say screw it? One person with one choice. No more bickering over issues, shady politics, and all that.

[Cade]

I guess whe should try.The way I view it is that America is not even a Democracy.

[Anbu-Phoenix]

I totally agree.

[Cyl]

yea TBC you are right..

[TheBlackChidori]

Dude I hate responses like this. Contribute to the conversation with more than "youre right"!

[Cyl]

well ok >< jees, but i am sleepy and lazy today so tommorow

[Shkin]

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by TheBlackChidori

Seriously, how many people think that a Monarchy in this country would actually succeed? You know how our Presidential Democracy works, right? "We the people?" Yeah, bull.

Explain how George Bush lost the popular vote to both John Kerry and Al Gore, but still became president. Our opinion doesnt matter. Its the old people at Washington that we also had no choice of, that lead the way.

So why dont we just skip the bullcrap, and have a Monarchy? Rome, Greece, Persia. The greatest empires of all time, at the peak of their civilzation, it was a monarchy. All of them. They all tried Democracy. Rome crashed and burned, Greece went broke, and Persia was destroyed and taken over.

So why dont we? The economy could be advantageous after some time. Sure, taxes would hike during the first 5-10 years, but think of how rich the country would be afterwards? We spend billions on politics. Campaigns, Senate, Congress, Judicial Courts, all of that crap. The politicians and their salaries and all their programs cost more to uphold than every other occupation combined, with the exception of entertainers.

So why not just say screw it? One person with one choice. No more bickering over issues, shady politics, and all that.

the only problem, TBC, is that who's gonna be the King? i bet America will be ground zero after all hell breaks loose on the battle of who's gonna get the title...king and queen wannabes fighting with everything they have...after that...silence...America gone!

i bet Bill Gates will be King. LOL

[Sasuke726]

it would work but id like an anarchy government for some reason

[Shkin]

Originally Posted by Sasuke726

it would work but id like an anarchy government for some reason

anarchy? government? check the dic...

edit: that is dictionary.

[sardns]

Monarchies have their pros and cons. Maybe it would work, just so long as America doesn't go down the poophole like France did before the revolution and so long as it doesn't turn into a totalitarian government. Yeah, I've thought about how Russia might have been better off if the czars still existed rather than communism.

[kzilla2000]

Originally Posted by TheBlackChidori

Seriously, how many people think that a Monarchy in this country would actually succeed? You know how our Presidential Democracy works, right? "We the people?" Yeah, bull.

Explain how George Bush lost the popular vote to both John Kerry and Al Gore, but still became president. Our opinion doesnt matter. Its the old people at Washington that we also had no choice of, that lead the way.

So why dont we just skip the bullcrap, and have a Monarchy? Rome, Greece, Persia. The greatest empires of all time, at the peak of their civilzation, it was a monarchy. All of them. They all tried Democracy. Rome crashed and burned, Greece went broke, and Persia was destroyed and taken over.

So why dont we? The economy could be advantageous after some time. Sure, taxes would hike during the first 5-10 years, but think of how rich the country would be afterwards? We spend billions on politics. Campaigns, Senate, Congress, Judicial Courts, all of that crap. The politicians and their salaries and all their programs cost more to uphold than every other occupation combined, with the exception of entertainers.

So why not just say screw it? One person with one choice. No more bickering over issues, shady politics, and all that.

i completly agree

[Sabra Kusabana]

You left out another big one. Egypt was also a monarchy, a very successful one. Only difference is in terms, Kings vs Pharaohs. Just had to add it in, it's my favorite. You're also quite right, monarchy is a very viable and in many ways better system.

In a monarchy you have several benefits, one there is a pretty obvious rulership. In the current system we never see the people who really have their hands on our lives, the people with the big bucks. We all know money runs this country, it's just that simple. As long as money is factor in who is elected to any office there will be someone behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings.

Monarchy also means that the rulers are born and breed to be just that. They are always educated and guided in all aspects of how to govern, often built on knowledge of hundreds of years and several generations. This means there is little to no question of if someone is qualified to be in the position in the aspect of knowledge, now personality is another thing entirely, but I'll get to that.

In a monarchy there is one person who is actually calling the shots, but often they are still surrounded by advisors, so you don't have just one person's opinion going into the mix, which could be dangerious. You still have people promoted into positions to help mirco-manage the kingdom.

You have what amounts to the same system we have now, but instead of money being the ultimate secret power behind the 'face of the nation' there's a history. Sometimes someone gets high enough to influence the king, favorism is played still, but at least it's more obvious. Personally I'd love to know who's playing the country like a fiddle, because really it's being used as an instrument for someone's purpose, we just don't know who's.

Really a monarchy would also help alot, we'd be following one vision for more then 4 or 8 years. Instead right now we have the vision of our 'leader' jerked around on a regular basis. We'd get a hell of alot more done more often if we only change leaders every 20 years or even more.

Some kings/queens ruled for so long that people would live their whole lives under just a single one. Never having to worry about things like 'oh, what nut will money put in next year'. Kings only changed by them stepping down and by death, usually passing rule to someone everyone already knows. This means you know whats coming well in advance, and even if the person changes often the monarchy will still hold to similar rules for generations of kings. The king method of governance means alot of security for the people in what will happen next.

Personality put a king up there, please somebody! The king would most likely be chosen from one of the oldest/richest families in the nation, which is how kings first came to power anyway. In fact the way most people veiw government they wouldn't even feel a change. Most people assume that the president is a kind of king, when in truth he's little more then a figurehead. He has no more individual power then the House and Senate. Still people think he's the only one calling the shots. So really why not let that be true? Retitle the job and give it more power.

The government head would change, but the threoy of governance may stay the same. All kings had different ways they handled things. What you call the person in power doesn't mean a change in socialism or capitalism or whatever other ism you want to apply. It could mind you, but alot of the time a system would remain the same reguardless of who's in the big chair. There's more to governing then who's at the top.

So hell yes, pick me a king, hell we could even have a final public vote on it, one that isn't doled out by corrupt officials. An out and out public vote, or hell try this: We put names on a big wheel and throw a dart. The names are picked semi-randomly from qualified individuals. Throw the dart and pray it's not a psycho. Because that's the one real risk in monarchy, the potential on an insane ruler, of course for all we know the current puppet master might be crazy as is. So even that doesn't scare me too much. Go ahead someone throw the dart, you know you want to.

[EdFry]

But there lies the problem, one person with total control doesn't work. Even with the greedy porkers we have in charge they are giving us the fairest deal. Imagine if some crazy Bleeding Heart Christian was King, no Gays, no Alcohol, no anything unless it is productive in spreading the "Lord's Word". Or even worse we could have someone trick their way into becoming king and then they turn out to be a Tyrant, I would much rather stick with "Democracy" then have to deal with the possibility of the United Soviet States of America or Civil War part II.

[ItachiAnbu]

Originally Posted by TheBlackChidori

Seriously, how many people think that a Monarchy in this country would actually succeed? You know how our Presidential Democracy works, right? "We the people?" Yeah, bull.

Explain how George Bush lost the popular vote to both John Kerry and Al Gore, but still became president. Our opinion doesnt matter. Its the old people at Washington that we also had no choice of, that lead the way.

So why dont we just skip the bullcrap, and have a Monarchy? Rome, Greece, Persia. The greatest empires of all time, at the peak of their civilzation, it was a monarchy. All of them. They all tried Democracy. Rome crashed and burned, Greece went broke, and Persia was destroyed and taken over.

So why dont we? The economy could be advantageous after some time. Sure, taxes would hike during the first 5-10 years, but think of how rich the country would be afterwards? We spend billions on politics. Campaigns, Senate, Congress, Judicial Courts, all of that crap. The politicians and their salaries and all their programs cost more to uphold than every other occupation combined, with the exception of entertainers.

So why not just say screw it? One person with one choice. No more bickering over issues, shady politics, and all that.

Let's stick with Democracy in the U.S. It's worked out relatively well so far, so let's keep trying.

If you want, nmove to another country and try to instill a Monarchy there. Seriously. (I just doubt you could get one going here)

Monarchies have worked in the past, for some countries. It's always possible.

But if some people in a Democracy are corrupt, creating a Monarchy from that Democracy can only turn out badly. And we have very many corrupt politicians. That "one person with one choice" might just make a bad choice, even when the people want to make a good choice.

Let's just stick with Democracy, ok? We're actually doing ok right now, despite how bad our government sucks. We're alive, aren't we?

[Sabra Kusabana]

Originally Posted by EdFry

Imagine if some crazy Bleeding Heart Christian was King, no Gays, no Alcohol, no anything unless it is productive in spreading the "Lord's Word".

The only thing I can say to that is pretty much all monarchy's were 'Holy' kingdoms to one or more gods. You almost can't have a functional monarchy without a large factor of it being religion. I'm not arguing, in fact I agree with how bad that could get, but overall that's a norm with monarchy situations. It'd suck for some of us, but life sucks most of the time anyway. There have been attempts at kingships without religion in them, but they usually desolved quickly, so you make a good point.

[TheViolletteHeart]

Originally Posted by Cade

I guess whe should try.The way I view it is that America is not even a Democracy.

*waves arms around* That's because we're not a democracy; we're a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!! A democracy is where everything is voted on. A republic is when there are representatives (that aren't a monarch or anything like that) that run everything. Thus, a democratic republic is where we vote for representatives that, in turn, vote on how our country acts.

Originally Posted by shkin

i bet Bill Gates will be King. LOL

That would be interesting...

Originally Posted by sardns

Monarchies have their pros and cons. Maybe it would work, just so long as America doesn't go down the poophole like France did before the revolution and so long as it doesn't turn into a totalitarian government. Yeah, I've thought about how Russia might have been better off if the czars still existed rather than communism.

Originally Posted by Sabra Kusabana

In a monarchy there is one person who is actually calling the shots, but often they are still surrounded by advisors, so you don't have just one person's opinion going into the mix, which could be dangerious. You still have people promoted into positions to help mirco-manage the kingdom.

Which is the only way a monarchy could effectively run a large country.

Originally Posted by ItachiAnbu

Let's stick with Democracy in the U.S. It's worked out relatively well so far, so let's keep trying.

If you want, nmove to another country and try to instill a Monarchy there. Seriously. (I just doubt you could get one going here)

Monarchies have worked in the past, for some countries. It's always possible.

But if some people in a Democracy are corrupt, creating a Monarchy from that Democracy can only turn out badly. And we have very many corrupt politicians. That "one person with one choice" might just make a bad choice, even when the people want to make a good choice.

Let's just stick with Democracy, ok? We're actually doing ok right now, despite how bad our government sucks. We're alive, aren't we?

Yes, we seem to be doing fine as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Besides, part of the reason we wouldn't change to a monarchy goes back to when our country was just a collection of 13 colonies. We wanted religious freedom and fair taxes, so we broke off and adopted a new government system. I don't think people would take too kindly to their individualism (or atleast their freedom to be individual) being taken away by a crackpot monarch.

If for whatever reason we do swich to monarchy, we should hope it's a kind one with a brain.

[Nick Tasogare]

America! xD

[EdFry]

Originally Posted by nick tasogare

america! Xd

@#%& yeah!

[ihazcetsup]

Two points

First, this is a very valid point. A monarchy would have the potential to run far more smoothly with far less money dissapearing into the pockets of functionaries. It would also probably need to be tied to some at least quasi-religious system to be able to perpetuate itself in the eyes of the public. Unfortunately there isn't much hope of anything more than much the same thing within a couple generations as far as fiscal waste and corrupt power brokering.


Second

As an alternative I would like to throw out an idea that has admittedly been tried, but I believe would have a better chance of success and would also provide a means of ensuring local leadership have their own region's interest at heart.

A confederacy, not necessarily broken down all the way to the states but to general regions with little to no power left in the central system outside of voting on a few things such as going to war as a group would leave most of the people that would be making decisions for communities and their surroundings stuck in those communities. They would have to work to keep their regions prosperous instead of living off of the detritous of their people in a differnet geo-political region as we currently have things set up. Our senators only go "home" when they need more votes. If they really had to live with the results of their actions there could be the possibility of them not f'ing it up.

[Sabra Kusabana]

Originally Posted by ihazcetsup

Our senators only go "home" when they need more votes. If they really had to live with the results of their actions there could be the possibility of them not f'ing it up.

I approve this logic. When your actions do not directly impact you there's no motivation to really care. So send the bas***s home to suffer their own poor policies.