Why a Catholic Monarchy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2015, 05:04 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 09:50 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  it only makes you look worse.

... said the idiot who couldn't look any worse and be held in more contempt if he tried.
His head is SO far up his ass, he may actually see daylight soon.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2015, 06:19 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 10:31 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 10:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Seriously? I essentially said that neither monarchy nor direct democracy was worth considering.

This is your thread about a Catholic monarchy which I have been addressing.
If you can't stay on the subject then maybe you should re-think your participation. Drinking Beverage

And yet, between those two governments and a representative republic, you cannot tell me which form of government has more accountability. I did not ask you this week if any of these forms of government are worth considering. And though, yes, this conversation can fit underneath the broader discussion of Catholic Monarchy, it is obvious that the conversation has focused on a new sharper tangent this week.

Your rather silly question (does it have an actual point?) is utterly under specified.

What kind of constitutional monarchy? What are the powers of the monarch?
Is it the England of today, or is it a limitation of the monarch's power by a hereditary ruling class?

And what kind of representative democracy? A sham like all of the People's Democratic Republics?
A semi-sham where there is really an oligarchy of moneyed interests? A true, functioning democracy in a classless society?

What is the actual point of the question?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
19-04-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
I like the idea of a monarchy.

And every so often, when the king isn't working out - we kill him ---- George Carlin

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
19-04-2015, 08:10 PM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 08:31 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 05:07 PM)BnW Wrote:  I think the far more likely outcome is what usually has - the monarch keeps power through force and shuts down any dissent or opposition quickly and violently, the way dictators and monarchs have always put down dissent an opposition.

Yes. But even if the monarch were to do such a thing, he would be the one performing the evil. He would be the one retaining power. He would be the one using force and shutting down dissent. There would be no questions as to who all is to blame for the realm's problems. The blame for such a scenario would lie squarely on the king. Don't you agree?

I suppose. So what? You do realize that there is a difference between identifiable and accountable, right? Just because you can identify who is responsible for something doesn't mean that person is accountable. That's the point of a monarchy - the monarch is never accountable. They hold absolute power without recourse. So, to whom do they owe anything?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
20-04-2015, 02:24 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
And we're back to Larry's fantasy world where the just King rules the populace wisely in the name of God, with the aid of the righteous and true Pope. It doesn't *work* like that Larry. The King does not possess the mandate of heaven. No one does, because God and Jesus and all the rest are *fictional*.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
20-04-2015, 04:39 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
You don't even need to get into the "there's a god/there's no god" debate. History provides so many examples of how monarchs, including catholic monarchs, are accountable to no one and serve no interest but their own that we can all just rely on those.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BnW's post
20-04-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 09:37 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  
(18-04-2015 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Partial quote? You are an ass.

I answered it. Read it again - I suspect it was too subtle for you.

Partial quote? Ha. Gimme a break.

It's like you're a school child with a multiple-answer test who decides to ignore the test itself, and you start drawing all over the paper.

Here, let me re-paste it for you with numbers. Put the numbers in the order that you think is best according to the question.

Then, state why you answered in such a way, if you dare. Drinking Beverage



Which form of government of these three choices would be held most accountable and would be the most DIFFICULT to corrupt?

#1 Representative democracy
#2 Direct democracy
#3 Constitutional monarchy

In what order would you put them in terms of government accountability?

Why do you think this?

-

Wrong question child.

"In which form of government is it most probable that the largest number of people in the population's well-being would be maximized".

They are not the same thing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(20-04-2015 06:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "In which form of government is it most probable that the largest number of people in the population's well-being would be maximized".

In a brave new world...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(20-04-2015 07:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-04-2015 06:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "In which form of government is it most probable that the largest number of people in the population's well-being would be maximized".

In a brave new world...

Or beyond the horizon...

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-04-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Why a Catholic Monarchy?
(18-04-2015 04:47 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  In a direct democracy, you cut through all of that. The citizenry just votes for what they want, and there's less of a chance for the masses to be betrayed by their so-called representatives. I think that what Hafnof says is true; it could be best to have two parties to keep one group of people in a nation from dominating the other. But you can still have that in a direct democracy. I don't see any reason you couldn't have different political parties in direct democracy.

I actually really like what you are saying here and I think it could potentially be a workable system. Let's say you have the following:
1. Start with a two-party system. A house of representatives and a senate.
2. The house of representatives is designed to be a fairly stable government/opposition system. It probably elected on a 4-ish year cycle as per existing systems and typically government and opposition change over every 8-12 years.
3. The senate is established as a set of voting proxies. Each proxy "is" a political party. Voters can vote on individual legislation but always have a proxy nominated in case they miss a vote. They can change their proxy at any time.
4. The government of the day cannot pass legislation without the consent of both houses.

I think most voters would leave their vote with their proxies for most votes in much the same way as they do now, but the ability to vote directly for a given issue or to change allegiances more often may curtail government power in a way that the current system cannot really achieve.

The number of proxies would still need to be limited so there would need to be a system to select them. Presumably the current electoral system could more or less work, but with no need for multiple representatives from a single party the process could be streamlined.

Probably the most difficult practical problem is still ensuring mass electronic voting can take place in a way that cannot be easily corrupted and which facilitates these quick changes of decision by voters.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: