Myles Domini Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:34 PM']A popularity contest beats bloodline. At least a popularity contest is based on SOMETHING. A bloodline King has nothing going for him except for the fact that the duchess of lalaland married the duke of the doldrums, and whence he came. [right][snapback]888397[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A popularity contest wherein people regularly stoop to any level and develop all sorts of evil habits like slander, detraction, lying etc. just to win a few votes. Aristotle was absolutely correct when he critiqued the kind of vices a democratic system is conductive too. In my opinion monarchy is simply a better political system for making upright men. [quote]i did advocate against bloodlines... I disagree with its concept, and believe that a king should be choosen out of achievements and qualifications rather than heritage. But once choosen, by whatever means (I like the conclave thingy...0, then the king rules until retirement or death or both.[/quote] I disagree. Perhaps one might test the heir to the throne for his capabilities but I dont think we should have an elected monarchy. In which case who decides? Look at the Holy Roman Empire? The shameless bribing and political moves behind the scenes were characteristic of the kind of thing that goes on behind closed doors at party HQ's today. Having a definite heir does not lead to the instability and (more) vice friendly conditions brought about by elected monarchy. Edited February 15, 2006 by Myles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well, I disagree. Upright men are made, well, because they were raised that way. The Psalmist declared with reason "place not your trust in princes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:42 PM']Well, I disagree. Upright men are made, well, because they were raised that way. [right][snapback]888415[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Exactly my point. So raise a prince to become a King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Didacus' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:36 PM']The future might surprise my dear. [right][snapback]888402[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, if the world blows itself up in the near future, and we go back to being a herd of twig hunters, maybe monarchy will make a swift return. But as presently constituted, I just don't think it's reasonably possible in most countries, and unthinkable in the United States. As I think someone else said above, Americans would never stand for it. Democracy is the foundation of our entire existence, unlike European nations. Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:38 PM']A popularity contest wherein people regularly stoop to any level and develop all sorts of evil habits like slander, detraction, lying etc. just to win a few votes. Aristotle was absolutely correct when he critiqued the kind of vices a democratic system is conductive too. In my opinion monarchy is simply a better political system for making upright men. I disagree. Perhaps one might test the heir to the throne for his capabilities but I dont think we should have an elected monarchy. In which case who decides? Look at the Holy Roman Empire? The shameless bribing and political moves behind the scenes were characteristic of the kind of thing that goes on behind closed doors at party HQ's today. Having a definite heir does not lead to the instability and (more) vice friendly conditions brought about by elected monarchy. [right][snapback]888406[/snapback][/right] [/quote] just make me king of america for four years and everything will be come clear... ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:43 PM']Exactly my point. So raise a prince to become a King. [right][snapback]888417[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Or raise a Governor to become a President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:44 PM']Well, if the world blows itself up in the near future, and we go back to being a herd of twig hunters, maybe monarchy will make a swift return.[/quote] Canticle of Leobwitz anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:44 PM']Well, if the world blows itself up in the near future, and we go back to being a herd of twig hunters, maybe monarchy will make a swift return. But as presently constituted, I just don't think it's reasonably possible; in most countries, and unthinkable in the United States. As I think someone else said above, Americans would never stand for it. Democracy is the foundation of our entire existence, unlike European nations. [right][snapback]888418[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Democracy is not the foundation of American existence as I think King's Rook pointed out. Its just been played up to be so. Nobody ever thought Rome would stop being a republic and go back to having sole rulers but didn't the Caesars (Julius and especially Octavian) shock them. You've had monarch's before and like the Romans as much as you love your republic its not incoceivable that you could have an Augustus in the future. Just remember whilst the first Brutus was the hero who drove out the last of the early Roman kings, the other one was reviled by the Romans for mudering their beloved Dictator. Edited February 15, 2006 by Myles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:44 PM']Well, if the world blows itself up in the near future, and we go back to being a herd of twig hunters, maybe monarchy will make a swift return. But as presently constituted, I just don't think it's reasonably possible in most countries, and unthinkable in the United States. As I think someone else said above, Americans would never stand for it. Democracy is the foundation of our entire existence, unlike European nations. [right][snapback]888418[/snapback][/right] [/quote] There is much more than democracy at the foundation of the US and take away a single strand and the house of cards falls; like all empires in history. The wrold map will be much different in 20 years than it is now. But that's another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:47 PM']Democracy is not the foundation of American existence as I think King's Rook pointed out. Its just been played up to be so. Nobody ever thought Rome would stop being a republic but didn't the Caesars (Julius and especially Octavian) shock them. You've had monarch's before and like the Romans as much as you love your Republic its not incoceivable that you could have an Augustus in the future. [right][snapback]888422[/snapback][/right] [/quote] America has had monarchs before? Name one. Well, I should say *The United States* has had monarchs before...name one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Inconceivable? No, nothing is inconceivable. We could be a Muslim theocracy before the century is out. Not inconceivable, but not likely either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Didacus' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:48 PM']There is much more than democracy at the foundation of the US and take away a single strand and the house of cards falls; like all empires in history. The wrold map will be much different in 20 years than it is now. But that's another topic. [right][snapback]888423[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, we disagree. The United States was formed with the express avoidance of a monarchy. This is why George Washington stepped down after two terms. He did not want to become King George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:48 PM']America has had monarchs before? Name one. Well, I should say *The United States* has had monarchs before...name one. [right][snapback]888424[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You never said the United States : Moreover, one cannot have a war for independence if one is not fighting against the rule of someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well, forgive me. I forgot I was talking to a brit. : 'Round here, "America" is synonomous with "The United States". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 America, when first colonized, was just an extension of the particular country that landed (Britain, Spain, Portugal, etc). That is, in a sense, THEIR history, not ours. Our history is that of the United States, a completely new sovereign nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now