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.
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.
Presidents automatically time out in most countries. yeah, it's a problem where they don't. They're usually called dictators.
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