There wasn't one in the 20th century -- British Empire

Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:44:14 05/13/08 Tue
Author: Paul_G
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 12.144.36.2
Subject: There wasn't one in the 20th century
In reply to: Latham 's message, "is there a place for the Monarchy in the 21st century?" on 15:04:56 05/10/08 Sat

There's a few reasons why monarchy has no place in a modern society:

The arbitrary means of selecting a monarch. What happens if you get one is a bit nuts (like George III) or just ineffective, like Edward VIII. IMO any national leader has to have real qualifications to be so, rather than mere birthright. There also needs to be a means of replacing a person who can no longer perform the job without resorting to poison or a guillotine. Sure, you'll still end up with people like George Bush in power on occasion, but overall the pool of leaders will be better if there is a real system.

Also, the monarch would not be selected by the will of the people, and therefore has no reason to represent anyone other than the upper class of the society they live in. Look at Europe before the French Revolution, or even a place like Saudi Arabia today. The leaders of such a state have no incentive to work for the good of the average person.

There's also the expense... lands, property, and in some cases income that royalty gets could better be spent elsewhere.

IMO we lost the empire largely because we didn't adapt quite well enough to changing times. One example is that we didn't abandon an institution like this as soon as it was apparent that societies could function better without it. To be the best, we have to adopt the best ideas and put the best people in charge.

It's part of the cycle of what powerful countries do... America is in a conservative phase now, trying to stick to the values and approaches that put them at the top of the heap. Yet it's being conservative and unwilling to adapt that makes us less competitive with more forward-thinking nations.

I believe that a true democracy is the only way to go. Let the people vote on most of the significant laws and policies on an individual basis, and let them decide who is in charge.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jordan, 20:45:50 05/17/08 Sat
- Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jack, 08:35:34 05/18/08 Sun
  - Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jordan, 14:42:01 05/18/08 Sun
    - Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jack, 13:31:17 05/19/08 Mon
      - Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jordan, 23:15:14 05/19/08 Mon
        Re: There wasn't one in the 20th century -- Jack, 00:57:56 05/21/08 Wed

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>There's a few reasons why monarchy has no place in a >modern society: > >The arbitrary means of selecting a monarch. What >happens if you get one is a bit nuts (like George III) >or just ineffective, like Edward VIII. IMO any >national leader has to have real qualifications to be >so, rather than mere birthright. There also needs to >be a means of replacing a person who can no longer >perform the job without resorting to poison or a >guillotine. Sure, you'll still end up with people like >George Bush in power on occasion, but overall the pool >of leaders will be better if there is a real system. > >Also, the monarch would not be selected by the will of >the people, and therefore has no reason to represent >anyone other than the upper class of the society they >live in. Look at Europe before the French Revolution, >or even a place like Saudi Arabia today. The leaders >of such a state have no incentive to work for the good >of the average person. > >There's also the expense... lands, property, and in >some cases income that royalty gets could better be >spent elsewhere. > >IMO we lost the empire largely because we didn't adapt >quite well enough to changing times. One example is >that we didn't abandon an institution like this as >soon as it was apparent that societies could function >better without it. To be the best, we have to adopt >the best ideas and put the best people in charge. > >It's part of the cycle of what powerful countries >do... America is in a conservative phase now, trying >to stick to the values and approaches that put them at >the top of the heap. Yet it's being conservative and >unwilling to adapt that makes us less competitive with >more forward-thinking nations. > >I believe that a true democracy is the only way to go. >Let the people vote on most of the significant laws >and policies on an individual basis, and let them >decide who is in charge.
Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.