The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist. Not that it's really that good, but overthrowing a single shithead is simpler than toppling a corrupt behemoth that's gives the people the illusion of choice, but is really just beholden to a certain group in people.
Think of it in terms of responsibility; a monarchy puts one man in charge and he's responsible for the country. If he lives and dies by the state of the State, he will (mostly) do what's best for it.
Who's responsible in a democracy? Everyone, which is to say no one.
I think democracy can work if leaders are properly held to account (ie are at personal risk if the state begins to fail) and if the voting franchise is properly earned.
"Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose" is already true. Voting is just an illusion of choice. All the important decisions are made by the Epstein class without input from anyone else.
The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist
a Christian monarchist who is trained from birth to answer to God. At the end of their life they will be judged. That is unironically the best form of government. That is what the two world ward destroyed and installed a bureaucracy in every country instead. The bureaucracy who is easily swayed by bribery against their own citizenry.
The intelligent women who are capable of voting will tell you themselves that they don't want the franchise for women. Even if they, personally, can handle the responsibility, they are smart enough to understand that most women can't.
Kind of like how I, as an immigrant, would say that immigrants shouldn't vote. Even though I personally would vote in the interests of the native people, immigrants as a whole will not, so as a whole they should be denied the franchise.
Part of HC's conditions was children from current marriage. The marriage itself shouldn't count double unless it's productive. Even then, there could still be the inverted relationship you're describing, but I think it would be an extreme edge case.
Personally I think if you don't own land, a home or a personal business you shouldn't be allowed to vote. You should only be allowed to vote if you have skin in the game.
I largely agree, if we had infinite land. However, we are already moving towards a landed aristocracy where those who vote would just be the children who inherit land.
I'd base it on taxes. If you put in more than you take out, you get to vote.
Because democracy doesn't work. Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose.
The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist. Not that it's really that good, but overthrowing a single shithead is simpler than toppling a corrupt behemoth that's gives the people the illusion of choice, but is really just beholden to a certain group in people.
Think of it in terms of responsibility; a monarchy puts one man in charge and he's responsible for the country. If he lives and dies by the state of the State, he will (mostly) do what's best for it.
Who's responsible in a democracy? Everyone, which is to say no one.
I think democracy can work if leaders are properly held to account (ie are at personal risk if the state begins to fail) and if the voting franchise is properly earned.
Democracy only works if it's kept as small as possible. You should only be voting for what happens in your town and that's it
Indeed.
"Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose" is already true. Voting is just an illusion of choice. All the important decisions are made by the Epstein class without input from anyone else.
The problem with a monarchy is the perfect converse of that: the machinery of the state only has to corrupt one man to gain absolute control.
Corrupting hundreds hasn't seemed to have been much of a problem.
Because society itself has become corrupted. The people who wrote the Constitution pointed out that it could not handle an amoral populace.
That's the result of the oligarchs and their puppets having nothing to fear from the people nowadays. What are you gonna do, vote harder?
a Christian monarchist who is trained from birth to answer to God. At the end of their life they will be judged. That is unironically the best form of government. That is what the two world ward destroyed and installed a bureaucracy in every country instead. The bureaucracy who is easily swayed by bribery against their own citizenry.
The intelligent women who are capable of voting will tell you themselves that they don't want the franchise for women. Even if they, personally, can handle the responsibility, they are smart enough to understand that most women can't.
Kind of like how I, as an immigrant, would say that immigrants shouldn't vote. Even though I personally would vote in the interests of the native people, immigrants as a whole will not, so as a whole they should be denied the franchise.
Women shouldn't vote, but the male head of household could have his vote be counted twice to reflect his responsibility.
That could easily backfire if the man is a soyboy betacuck and the woman is a overbearing feminist she-beast.
The solution to that is built in; those relationships collapse quickly while strong marriages stand the test of time.
Part of HC's conditions was children from current marriage. The marriage itself shouldn't count double unless it's productive. Even then, there could still be the inverted relationship you're describing, but I think it would be an extreme edge case.
The issue is that one side always sees it can gain and maintain power by expanding it out just a little bit more.
Letting 16 year olds and illegals vote was inevitable.
Personally I think if you don't own land, a home or a personal business you shouldn't be allowed to vote. You should only be allowed to vote if you have skin in the game.
Landowning White men with clean criminal records, only. Minimum age 35.
One step at a time my friend.
Well yeah, nonwhites and sexual deviants will be purged already. Otherwise I'm fine with a Christian Monarchy.
I largely agree, if we had infinite land. However, we are already moving towards a landed aristocracy where those who vote would just be the children who inherit land.
I'd base it on taxes. If you put in more than you take out, you get to vote.
If you aren't a net contributor to taxes you shouldn't be able to vote.
So, the bigger the nose the more say you have?
It works if you don't let women vote... FACT...