a frail old nobody you've never seen and knows nothing about you.
That applies to basically every ruler on the planet, whether by election or by blood.
Generally speaking, I think a monarch has more incentive to care about not driving their nation off a cliff than a politician does. When a country goes to shit under a politician - I mean, really, really goes to shit, what happens? Usually that politician gets assassinated or exiled.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch?
The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Going by recent events (and not so recent ones), when an elected leader lets a country go to shit, they fleece the country for all it's worth before fleeing it with millions.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch? The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Then it's not working because the whole commonwealth went to shit under the Queen. Who is to blame, her or the people who didn't murder her family?
Now you're going to tell me that she's just a figurehead who doesn't actually run the government and therefore holds zero responsibility on the state of the UK - and I don't know all the finer details of a thousand years of law and history of your country to argue with you - but I'll just point out that there's always soft power in addition to "de jure" power, and everyone has some, not least of which the head of the royal family. I know she's legally barred from intruding on specific customs and procedures, but I strongly doubt she did not have access to a worldwide network of highly-placed individuals and security personnel who took everything she said to heart, or that she couldn't just "make things happen" with a phone call. Even non-monarch basic elites have that. On top of that, when The Crown chooses to make an official public statement, the things they say are of consequence to the culture. That's why they are always so conservative about doing so. It's not something to be taken lightly. If she thought it was important she could have slowed down much of Clown World by simply leading.
A HUGE part of the problem with wokism is the fact that people in lesser positions of power who may be sympathetic to our side do not speak up for fear of being cancelled. That gives leftists the artificial impression that they surround us. Only their voices are allowed.
I'm not saying she was lazy or corrupt. Her family simply chose to prioritize stability of the relationship of the Crown and the government over leadership and promotion of proper culture. Paki grooming gangs raping a thousand English girls? That's a right shame innit, but better the Crown not impose. No drama please.
Then again didn't her husband once say he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus to lower the world's population? Maybe they weren't nice people after all.
Yeah I know it applies to all leaders of nation states on a modern scale.
I'm just replying to the animal-brain part and saying it's monkey brain that says "no likey" to being ordered around by someone who hasn't proven themselves to you. Whether by social power and garnering enough support amongst your peers, or just beating the shit out of whoever disagrees. At least with the elected leader there's the illusion of proven social power for the individual in question to fool the midwits.
That stands for most rulers. Your description of the Queen could equally be applied to the President.
I would rather be ruled by a Monarch than a politician.
When you're ruled by a Monarch, you're ruled by somebody who was thoroughly prepared for this role since birth, in his upbringing and education. It's his duty. His main incentive is leaving the country in the good shape for his descendants, as well as for the entire nation.
When you're ruled by a president, you're ruled by someone who has decided that he WANTS to rule, so usually that's a person with some serious psychological condition. He's elected "by the people", so his competence doesn't really matter. What matters is either how he sells himself to the voters, or who counts the votes cast for him. His main incentive is making as much money as possible until his term ends. Shape of the country doesn't matter if you can spend your retirement in another country.
I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
It sounds like we need some kind of hybrid system, but the inverse of those others you mentioned. Something where the leaders are not people who want to be leaders but those prepped for it from birth - but where there multiple options to choose from. They should be taken from all corners of high society, and forced through some kind of competition or a rigorous election - not a popularity vote by the masses - to determine who will be the ruler. And there needs to a way to retire them without violence and put a new one in place if we realize we made a mistake. (term limits for a start)
Obviously on top of limited government restricted by constitution and law and all that good stuff. I'm less interested in who is in charge than I am what powers they have.
That said that's also the part of your brain that should go "fuck no" to being ruled by some old broad in a metal hat.
Ruled by anyone really, but especially a frail old nobody you've never seen and knows nothing about you.
That applies to basically every ruler on the planet, whether by election or by blood.
Generally speaking, I think a monarch has more incentive to care about not driving their nation off a cliff than a politician does. When a country goes to shit under a politician - I mean, really, really goes to shit, what happens? Usually that politician gets assassinated or exiled.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch?
The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Going by recent events (and not so recent ones), when an elected leader lets a country go to shit, they fleece the country for all it's worth before fleeing it with millions.
Then it's not working because the whole commonwealth went to shit under the Queen. Who is to blame, her or the people who didn't murder her family?
Now you're going to tell me that she's just a figurehead who doesn't actually run the government and therefore holds zero responsibility on the state of the UK - and I don't know all the finer details of a thousand years of law and history of your country to argue with you - but I'll just point out that there's always soft power in addition to "de jure" power, and everyone has some, not least of which the head of the royal family. I know she's legally barred from intruding on specific customs and procedures, but I strongly doubt she did not have access to a worldwide network of highly-placed individuals and security personnel who took everything she said to heart, or that she couldn't just "make things happen" with a phone call. Even non-monarch basic elites have that. On top of that, when The Crown chooses to make an official public statement, the things they say are of consequence to the culture. That's why they are always so conservative about doing so. It's not something to be taken lightly. If she thought it was important she could have slowed down much of Clown World by simply leading.
A HUGE part of the problem with wokism is the fact that people in lesser positions of power who may be sympathetic to our side do not speak up for fear of being cancelled. That gives leftists the artificial impression that they surround us. Only their voices are allowed.
I'm not saying she was lazy or corrupt. Her family simply chose to prioritize stability of the relationship of the Crown and the government over leadership and promotion of proper culture. Paki grooming gangs raping a thousand English girls? That's a right shame innit, but better the Crown not impose. No drama please.
Then again didn't her husband once say he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus to lower the world's population? Maybe they weren't nice people after all.
If people aren't starving, it's not shit enough.
People won't stick their necks out unless they're hungry.
Yeah I know it applies to all leaders of nation states on a modern scale.
I'm just replying to the animal-brain part and saying it's monkey brain that says "no likey" to being ordered around by someone who hasn't proven themselves to you. Whether by social power and garnering enough support amongst your peers, or just beating the shit out of whoever disagrees. At least with the elected leader there's the illusion of proven social power for the individual in question to fool the midwits.
That stands for most rulers. Your description of the Queen could equally be applied to the President. I would rather be ruled by a Monarch than a politician.
When you're ruled by a Monarch, you're ruled by somebody who was thoroughly prepared for this role since birth, in his upbringing and education. It's his duty. His main incentive is leaving the country in the good shape for his descendants, as well as for the entire nation.
When you're ruled by a president, you're ruled by someone who has decided that he WANTS to rule, so usually that's a person with some serious psychological condition. He's elected "by the people", so his competence doesn't really matter. What matters is either how he sells himself to the voters, or who counts the votes cast for him. His main incentive is making as much money as possible until his term ends. Shape of the country doesn't matter if you can spend your retirement in another country.
...yeah, it's a no-brainer, really.
The main problem with monarchs is you get to generations with weak or sinful kings, and it's hard to get rid of them
I mean shit England got a queen for some reason
I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
It sounds like we need some kind of hybrid system, but the inverse of those others you mentioned. Something where the leaders are not people who want to be leaders but those prepped for it from birth - but where there multiple options to choose from. They should be taken from all corners of high society, and forced through some kind of competition or a rigorous election - not a popularity vote by the masses - to determine who will be the ruler. And there needs to a way to retire them without violence and put a new one in place if we realize we made a mistake. (term limits for a start)
Obviously on top of limited government restricted by constitution and law and all that good stuff. I'm less interested in who is in charge than I am what powers they have.
the SPQR has entered the chat
No one was really ruled by her though. She mooched off them, at best, and worked as some kimd of spokesperson.
It's either that or a clown in a suit who's deathy scared of combs.
Rule By Einstein Types